Gun Control: Options For Improving the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (Letter Report, 04/12/2000, GAO/GGD-00-56).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Brady Act's phase
I (interim Brady) and phase II (permanent Brady) provisions in
preventing the sale of firearms to prohibited individuals, focusing on:
(1) how the permanent Brady compares with the interim Brady; (2) under
permanent Brady, the advantages and disadvantages of the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System's (NICS) background checks
conducted by a designated state agency versus by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI); (3) under permanent Brady, the extent to which
default proceeds resulted in firearms being sold to prohibited
individuals; and (4) the options policymakers have in preventing or
minimizing such transfers.

GAO noted that: (1) under both interim and permanent Brady, access to
automated criminal history records has been essentially the same; (2)
under interim Brady, state or local chief law enforcement officers in
some jurisdictions accessed information on some of the disqualifiers
(such as mental health records and court restraining orders) that may
not be available for background checks conducted by the FBI under
permanent Brady; (3) however, under permanent Brady, the NICS Index
database now provides automated access to some information on the
nonfelony, noncriminal Brady disqualifiers that was not available under
interim Brady--that is, information about persons who have been unlawful
drug users or addicts, who have been adjudicated or involuntarily
committed as mentally defective, who are illegal or unlawful aliens, who
have been dishonorably discharged from the military, or who have
renounced their U.S. citizenship; (4) although the NICS expanded the
amount of disqualifying information centrally available for firearms
background checks, the database does not contain all relevant records,
most notably federal and state records on unlawful drug users and mental
defectives; (5) the FBI has a process for contracting federal and state
agencies to obtain this information; (6) under permanent Brady, state
agencies generally are better positioned than the FBI to conduct
background checks; (7) in addition, state agencies may be better able to
interpret their own state firearms purchase and possession laws,
resulting in a more efficient and effective background check process;
(8) default proceed transactions involving prohibited persons who
purchased firearms totalled 2,519 during the first 10 months of
permanent Brady; (9) these transactions involved the transfer of
firearms to persons who the FBI later determined to be prohibited from
receiving firearms; (10) according to FBI officials, these default
proceeds occured primarily because many states' automated criminal
history records did not show the dispositions of felony arrests, and
efforts to obtain such information took longer than 3 business days; and
(11) FBI data for these transfers indicated that an average of 25
business days elapsed between the initial NICS inquiry and the date the
FBI initiated retrieval of the firearms.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-00-56
     TITLE:  Gun Control: Options For Improving the National Instant
	     Criminal Background Check System
      DATE:  04/12/2000
   SUBJECT:  Law enforcement information systems
	     Gun control law
	     Firearms
	     State law
	     Law enforcement agencies
	     Crimes or offenses
	     Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER:  FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System
	     FBI National Crime Information Center Information System
	     FBI Interstate Identification Index
	     DOJ National Criminal History Improvement Program

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2000

GAO/GGD-00-56

GUN CONTROL
Options For Improving the National Instant

Criminal Background Check System

Ordering Copies of GAO Reports
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:
[email protected]
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
To contact GAO FraudNET use:
Web site:
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering
system)

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested

                    Bulk Rate
               Postage & Fees Paid
                       GAO
                 Permit No. G100

(184422)

Contents
Page 281GAO/GGD-00-56 Gun Control: Options for Improving NICS
Letter                                                                      1
                                                                             
Appendix I                                                                 30
Overview of Firearms
Purchase Application and
Background Check
Procedures Under Interim
and Permanent Brady
                           Interim Brady                                   30
                           Permanent Brady                                 32
                           Background                                      33
                           Questions and Responses Regarding the           42
                           Process in Which the FFL Contacts the
                           FBI
                                                                             
Appendix II                                                                44
Access To Disqualifying
Records Under Interim
Brady
                           BJS Report on Results of Interim Brady          44
                           Our Report on Implementation of                 45
                           Interim Brady
                           State and Local Perspectives on Access          46
                           to Information Under Interim Brady
                                                                             
Appendix III                                                               51
Information on States'
Firearms Laws
                           Overview                                        51
                           Permits                                         53
                           Waiting Periods                                 54
                           Reporting                                       55
                                                                             
Appendix IV                                                                57
Relationship Between
Background Checks and
Quality of Automated
Records
                           OTA Report (1991)                               57
                           BJS Report (1999)                               59
                           Improving the Quality of Automated              61
                           Records
                                                                             
Appendix V                                                                 64
Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
                           Objectives                                      64
                           Scope and Methodology of Our Work               65
                                                                             
Appendix VI                                                                71
GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
Tables                     Table 1: Number and Category of                  8
                           Records in the NICS Index (as of
                           November 30, 1999)
                           Table 2: Number of Business Days Taken          17
                           to Identify Default Proceed
                           Transactions Involving Prohibited
                           Purchasers (as of September 30, 1999)
                           Table I.1: State Participation Under            31
                           Interim Brady
                           Table II.1: State Access to                     45
                           Disqualifying Information Under
                           Interim Brady (as of November 1998)
                           Table III.1: State Permit, Waiting              51
                           Period, and Reporting Requirements
                           for Firearms Purchases (1999)
                           Table V.1: Brady Status of States               67
                           Selected for Site Visits
                                                                             
Figures                    Figure I.1:  State and Territory                34
                           Participation in the National Instant
                           Criminal Background Check System (as
                           of Feb. 1, 2000)
                           Figure I.2:  Flowchart of NICS                  36
                           Background Checks Conducted by the
                           FBI
                           Figure I.2 (cont.)                              37
                           Figure I.3:  Flowchart of NICS                  38
                           Background Checks Conducted by
                           Designated State Agencies
                                                                             

B-282742

Page 16GAO/GGD-00-56 Gun Control: Options for Impr
oving NICS
     B-282742

     April 12, 2000

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
 
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
United States Senate
 
This report responds to your request for
information about the effectiveness of the Brady
Act's phase I (interim Brady) and phase II
(permanent Brady) provisions in preventing the
sale of firearms to prohibited individuals.1 Under
interim Brady-which went into effect February 28,
1994, and applied to handguns only-background
checks generally were to be conducted by the chief
law enforcement officer (CLEO) in the purchaser's
residence community. During phase I, handguns were
not to be transferred for 5 business days (a
waiting period) unless the dealer received an
approval from the applicable state or local CLEO
before that time.

Under permanent Brady-effective November 30, 1998,
and applicable to all firearms, both handguns and
long guns (e.g., rifles and shotguns)- background
checks generally are to be conducted using a
computerized system, the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS), which is managed
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Under NICS, firearms are not to be transferred
until a background check determines that the
transfer will not violate applicable federal and
state laws. However, if the background check is
not completed within 3 business days, the sale is
allowed to proceed by default (a "default
proceed").

As agreed with you, our work addressed the
following questions:

ï¿½    Regarding access to databases or other
information sources for conducting background
checks to identify individuals prohibited by law
from receiving firearms, how does permanent Brady
compare with interim Brady? For instance, under
permanent Brady, does the FBI have access to the
same types of information that were available to
state and local CLEOs under interim Brady? If not,
what steps are being taken to enhance access to
such information?

ï¿½    Under permanent Brady, depending on the
specific state, either the FBI or a designated
state law enforcement agency (e.g., the state
police) uses NICS to conduct background checks.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of NICS
background checks being conducted by a designated
state agency versus such checks being conducted by
the FBI?
ï¿½    Under permanent Brady, to what extent have
default proceeds resulted in firearms being sold
to prohibited individuals? To prevent or minimize
such transfers, what are the options that
policymakers can consider?
Results in Brief
Under both interim and permanent Brady, access to
automated criminal history records-the basis for
most firearms purchase denials-has been
essentially the same. There are some differences,
however, regarding the nonfelony, noncriminal
Brady disqualifiers. Under interim Brady, for
example, state or local CLEOs in some
jurisdictions accessed information on some of the
disqualifiers (such as mental health records and
court restraining orders) that may not be
available for background checks conducted by the
FBI under permanent Brady. However, under
permanent Brady, the NICS Index database now
provides automated access to some information on
the nonfelony, noncriminal Brady disqualifiers
that was not centrally available under interim
Brady-that is, information about persons who have
been unlawful drug users or addicts, who have been
adjudicated or involuntarily committed as mentally
defective, who are illegal or unlawful aliens, who
have been dishonorably discharged from the
military, or who have renounced their U.S.
citizenship. Although the NICS Index expanded the
amount of disqualifying information centrally
available for firearms background checks, the
database does not contain all relevant records,
most notably federal and state records on unlawful
drug users and mental defectives. The FBI has a
process for contacting federal agencies and states
to determine the extent to which disqualifying
records are available for incorporation into the
NICS Index. FBI officials characterized this as a
continuous and cooperative effort, especially
given that the FBI cannot compel the submission of
state records.

Under permanent Brady, state agencies generally
are better positioned than the FBI to conduct
background checks. For example, we found that
state agencies have access to all of the
information available to the FBI through NICS,
plus some states also have additional information
available only to their respective state. In
addition, state agencies may be better able to
interpret their own state firearms purchase and
possession laws, resulting in a more efficient and
effective background check process. This can be
particularly important due to the complex nature
of firearms laws, which vary from state to state.
The FBI agreed that state agencies generally are
better positioned to conduct NICS background
checks and favors expanding the number of state
participants in NICS. However, several factors may
prevent such an increase, including (1) the cost
to the states for staffing and operating a
background check unit and (2) the states'
willingness or ability to participate.

Default proceed transactions involving prohibited
persons who purchased firearms totaled 2,519
during the first 10 months of permanent Brady.
These transactions involved the transfer of
firearms to persons who the FBI later determined
to be prohibited from receiving firearms. Such
transactions increased public safety concerns,
placed demands on law enforcement
resources-particularly the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)-in retrieving the
firearms, and exposed law enforcement agents to
potential risk associated with such retrievals.
According to FBI officials, these default proceeds
occurred primarily because many states' automated
criminal history records did not show the
dispositions (e.g., acquittals or convictions) of
felony arrests, and efforts to obtain such
information took longer than 3 business days. FBI
data for these transfers indicated that an average
of 25 business days elapsed between the initial
NICS inquiry and the date the FBI initiated
retrieval of the firearms.

To minimize the number of default proceed
transactions involving prohibited persons,
Congress could consider adopting one or more
options. One option is to continue a program
established under interim Brady that provides
criminal justice grants to states to improve the
quality and completeness of automated criminal
history records. Recognizing that state agencies
generally are better positioned than the FBI to
conduct NICS background checks, another option is
to provide financial incentives to states in order
to increase the number of states that participate
in NICS. Finally, another option would be to amend
the 3 business-day default proceed requirement of
the Brady Act to treat differently those potential
purchasers who had been arrested for disqualifying
offenses and disposition information concerning
the arrest was not readily available. The first
two options could offer a positive, long-term
impact on the overall efficiency and effectiveness
of NICS and facilitate the identification of
prohibited persons. The third option could
immediately reduce the number of prohibited
persons receiving firearms under NICS by providing
additional time to research incomplete criminal
history records. FBI data suggested that this
option would affect a relatively small percentage
of FBI NICS transactions-about 88,000 (or 2
percent)-that currently take more than 3 business
days to resolve.

Background
As noted previously, interim Brady background
checks generally were to be conducted by the CLEO
(e.g., a chief of police or sheriff) in the
purchaser's residence community to determine, on
the basis of available records, if the individual
was legally prohibited from buying a handgun under
the provisions of federal, state, or local law. By
the end of interim Brady, over 5,000 CLEOs were
conducting presale handgun background checks. Most
states (29) had multiple local CLEOs conducting
checks. For example, in Texas almost 1,000 local
CLEOs were responsible for interim Brady
background checks. In the other 21 states, a
single state agency-typically a subdivision of the
state police-was responsible for conducting
background checks. Virginia, for example,
established an instant background check system in
1989 (before interim Brady) operated by the
Virginia State Police, and the state continued to
operate that system after interim Brady went into
effect.

Under permanent Brady, background checks are
conducted by either the FBI or a designated state
agency (for those states willing to act as a NICS
liaison) using NICS to automatically query
available federal, state, and local records to
determine a purchaser's eligibility to own a
firearm.2 As of October 1, 1999, 15 states had
agreed to be full participants in NICS-that is, to
designate a state agency to conduct background
checks on all firearms purchases.3 Another 11
states agreed to be partial participants by
conducting checks for handguns, while the FBI
conducts checks for long guns. In the remaining 24
nonparticipant states, the FBI conducts all NICS
firearms background checks.

In designing NICS, the FBI hoped that as many
states as possible would be full participants.
Although there are only 15 full-participant
states, they include some of the most populous
states, such as California, Florida, Illinois, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. According to
FBI data for the first year of NICS operations
(Nov. 30, 1998, through Nov. 30, 1999), about one-
half of all NICS background checks were conducted
by the states.

During the first year of NICS operations, the FBI
and designated state agencies conducted about 8.8
million background checks using NICS. About 66
percent of the checks involved long guns, about 32
percent involved handguns, and about 1 percent
involved dual transactions (both long guns and
handguns).4 FBI data indicated that 2 percent
(about 81,000) of the FBI's 4.4 million background
checks resulted in denials.5 That is, the
potential buyer was found to be disqualified under
federal or state law from receiving or possessing
a firearm because, for example, criminal history
records showed a felony conviction. Moreover, for
about 72 percent of firearm-purchase background
checks conducted by the FBI, NICS provided
approval responses within 30 seconds after the
purchaser's identifying information was input into
the system. The remaining 28 percent of the
background checks had delayed responses. From a
sample of delayed responses handled by NICS
examiners, the FBI concluded that about 80 percent
were resolved within 2 hours or less and that the
remaining 20 percent required several hours or
days to resolve.

More details on interim and permanent Brady and
firearms background check procedures are presented
in appendix I. Also, we recently reported on the
implementation of permanent Brady.6

NICS Index Provides Centralized Access to More
Data but Has Not Reached Its Full Potential
Under interim Brady, background checks focused on
criminal history and other records available
through state repositories and two automated FBI
databases: (1) the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC),7 which is the nation's most
extensive criminal justice information system and
(2) the Interstate Identification Index (III),
which is an index-pointer system for the
interstate exchange of criminal history records.
Under permanent Brady, the NICS Index provides
some centralized information on the nonfelony and
noncriminal categories that could not be easily
checked under interim Brady. However, despite
increasing the overall quantity of information
centrally available for firearms background
checks, the NICS Index does not contain all
relevant records. The FBI has a process for
contacting federal agencies and states to identify
and obtain available records.

No Central Database for Nonfelony, Noncriminal
Disqualifiers Existed Under Interim Brady
Under interim Brady, state and local CLEOs had
centralized, automated  access to federal and
state criminal history records and wanted-persons
files-the basis for most firearms purchase
denials-through NCIC and III, two criminal justice
information systems that predated the Brady Act
and are now key components of NICS. In addition,
many CLEOs also had access to state or locally
maintained data on some of the other Brady
disqualifying factors-e.g., mental illness, court
restraining orders, and domestic violence
misdemeanors. Some CLEOs accessed local automated
databases (e.g., city or county criminal justice
information databases) for these data, but the
data were not all available at the state level for
statewide dissemination. However, under interim
Brady, state and local CLEOs did not access
specific data files or databases for other
nonfelony, noncriminal Brady disqualifiers-such as
illegal or unlawful aliens, dishonorable
discharges, and citizenship renunciations.

Appendix II gives more details on data and
databases that were available under interim Brady.

NICS Index Provides Centralized Access to Data but
Does Not Include All Disqualifying Records
FBI officials have stated that firearms background
checks under permanent Brady are more efficient
than under interim Brady, because all of Brady's
disqualifying categories can now be checked in a
single, computerized search using NICS. That is,
NICS provides centralized access to criminal
history and other records (such as domestic
violence misdemeanors and restraining orders)
through NCIC 2000 and III, while providing
simultaneous access to the nonfelony, noncriminal
disqualifying records contained in the NICS Index.
However, as of November 30, 1999-1 year after the
implementation of NICS-the NICS Index database had
relatively few records for most of the categories.
For example, as table 1 shows, the vast majority
of records (about 90 percent) in the NICS Index
covered one category (illegal or unlawful aliens).
These records were provided by one federal agency,
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

The status of other categories in the NICS Index
was as follows:

ï¿½    Controlled Substance Abuse - A total of 97
records had been submitted by 3 states. According
to the FBI, privacy interests may prohibit states
from submitting records about unlawful users or
persons addicted to drugs. Justice officials also
noted that, if this type of information were to be
available for other than firearms purchase
background check purposes, it could have a
chilling effect on persons who otherwise might
seek drug treatment. For this reason, and because
including certain records posed concerns about
unreasonable search and seizure, in February 1998,
Attorney General Reno made a decision not to
acquire federal agency drug-testing and drug-
treatment information for inclusion in the NICS
Index.
ï¿½    Mental Defectives - A total of 41 records had
been submitted by 6 states. The FBI received about
89,000 federal records from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) on November 1, 1999.
ï¿½    Dishonorable Discharges - About 6,300 federal
records had been submitted by the Department of
Defense (DOD) and the U.S. Coast Guard. These
records covered only the period since the Vietnam
War. Also, some U.S. Navy records were yet to be
entered, pending efforts to make the records
compatible with NICS Index requirements. FBI
officials told us that each dishonorable discharge
record submitted for inclusion in the NICS Index
was first validated by DOD to ensure that the
dishonorable discharge had not been subsequently
overturned by court action. Also, the FBI
officials noted that records on dishonorable
discharges before 1973 were not available at DOD
in an official, electronic database.
ï¿½    Citizenship Renunciants - A total of 626
records had been submitted by the State
Department. According to FBI officials, the
remaining records on renunciants have had to be
identified by the State Department on a case-by-
case basis and have had to be converted to a
format that can be accepted by the NICS Index. In
this regard, in January 2000, FBI officials told
us that the State Department has identified
approximately 11,000 additional records of
renunciants and was in the process of creating an
input file for NICS.
ï¿½    Denied Persons - Almost 11,000 records had
been submitted by 8 states. Provided by state law
enforcement agencies, these records contain the
names of persons who have been denied the purchase
of a firearm in accordance with federal law and
for whom disqualifying data are not contained in
any other file accessed by NICS.

Table 1: Number and Category of Records in the
NICS Index (as of November 30, 1999)
Category     Federal     State     Total Percent of
             records   records    active NICS Index
                                 records     total
Controlled         0       97a        97     <.01%
substance
abuse
Mental        88,898       41b    88,939       8.6
defectives
Illegal/un   927,874        3c   927,877      89.7
lawful
aliens
Dishonorab     6,303         0     6,303       0.6
le
discharges
Citizenshi       626         0       626       0.1
p
renounced
Denied             0   10,805d    10,805       1.0
persons
Total      1,023,701    10,946 1,034,647      100%
aRecords were submitted by three states.
bRecords were submitted by six states.
cRecords were submitted by two states.
dRecords were submitted by eight states.
Source: FBI data.

As indicated above, the FBI has largely focused on
entering federal records into the NICS Index. As
of November 30, 1999, the NICS Index contained
just over 1 million records.  This total
represents about a 10-percent increase over the
number of records the NICS Index contained when it
became operational 1 year earlier, on November 30,
1998. And, nearly all of the increase involved
records from one federal agency-VA. Few
disqualifying records have been obtained from the
states during that time.

We recognize that not all existing records can or
will be included in the NICS Index, even though
these records could be useful in identifying
persons attempting to purchase firearms who are
disqualified by law from doing so. For example,
according to FBI officials, some state and local
agencies may be prohibited by state law from
sharing substance abuse or mental health records
with others. Some states have also expressed
concern about whether the records would ever be
used for other purposes, such as background checks
for employment or professional licensing.
Similarly, in February 2000, the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) reported8 that the identification
of nonfelons ineligible to purchase firearms is
likely to remain problematic under NICS. BJS
further reported that dissemination of mental
health and drug abuse information raises legal and
ethical questions about the rights to privacy, and
new enabling statutes may be required to identify
and access such information.

According to FBI officials, the identification of
records that should be included in the NICS Index
requires ongoing cooperation among numerous
federal and state agencies. The officials
commented that the FBI's role in this process is
to ensure that all federal and state agencies have
been notified of (1) the availability of the NICS
Index and the system interface requirements and
(2) the necessity to provide accurate and valid
records that can be supported in the event of an
appeal. Initial outreach efforts cited by FBI
officials included the following:

ï¿½    Soon after Congress passed the Brady Act, the
FBI established the Brady Act Task Group, composed
of state and local law enforcement officials, to
develop functional requirements for NICS and the
requirements for records to be included in the
NICS Index. Also, the FBI drafted the Attorney
General's letter that was sent, on June 9, 1994,
to federal departments requesting that they
identify the format and location of relevant
records. And, in October 1994, the FBI began a
series of bilateral meetings with applicable
federal agencies.
ï¿½    Since 1994, NICS Index data-entry
requirements have been discussed at periodic
meetings of the Brady Act Task Group and other
groups, including the semiannual meetings of the
Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory
Policy Board.
ï¿½    In August 1997, the FBI hosted a "NICS
National Technical Conference" for representatives
of every state. The conference presented briefings
on the specifications for the NICS Index, as well
as the procedures for submitting records.
ï¿½    In June 1998, the FBI hosted a "NICS
Participant Conference" for states that serve as
NICS points of contact. Again, the conference
presented information about the NICS Index.
ï¿½    In August 1999, the FBI drafted a letter to
applicable federal agencies requesting additional
data to be loaded into the NICS Index.

As of December 1999, FBI officials summarized
their ongoing outreach efforts as follows:

ï¿½    The FBI is continuing to contact federal
agencies to identify and obtain any relevant
federal records that can be incorporated into the
NICS Index. Approximately half of the agencies
have responded so far; the remaining agencies are
being contacted by telephone.
ï¿½    For state records, the FBI has drafted a
letter to be sent to all states inquiring whether
they possess any records to submit to the NICS
Index. That letter is still being reviewed
internally.
ï¿½    The FBI is also contacting the NICS points-of-
contact in each state that participates in NICS to
further inquire about records that may be
available for submission to the NICS Index.
ï¿½    Also, the FBI is preparing an FBI/state
memorandum of understanding to address the issue
of how state records will be used in the NICS
Index and allow states to delete their records if
NICS' purpose is ever expanded beyond firearms
background checks.

According to FBI officials, once these outreach
efforts are completed, the FBI will decide the
types of additional action that are needed to
increase the number of federal and state records
in the NICS Index. However, the officials noted
that, since the FBI cannot compel state agencies
to identify records and submit them to the NICS
Index, their outreach efforts must be viewed as a
continuous and cooperative process.

Increased State Participation Could Improve NICS,
but Barriers Exist
     Under permanent Brady, states generally are
better positioned than the FBI to conduct firearms
purchase background checks because some state
agencies (1) can access additional data and
databases and (2) may be better able to interpret
their own state's laws. The FBI agreed that states
have certain advantages in conducting NICS
background checks and would like for more states
to be full participants in NICS. However, funding
and other reasons may present barriers to
increased state participation.

State Agencies Can Access NICS Databases Plus
Additional State Data
Under NICS, when the FBI or a state agency
performs a firearm purchase background check,
disqualifying records are checked using NCIC 2000,
III, and the NICS Index. The FBI's initial
automated NICS check is limited to records in
these three databases.9 However, some states have
automated access to additional databases or
records available only within their state. And in
some cases, state law may prohibit sharing this
information with others-such as other states or
the NICS Index. For example, Georgia, Virginia,
and Washington have databases that list
individuals within their state who have mental
health disabilities or have been adjudicated
mentally incompetent. Virginia's mental health
database, however, is available only to the
Virginia State Police for firearms background
check purposes. Therefore, if the FBI conducted a
firearms background check on a Virginia resident
(e.g., for an out-of-state long gun purchase), the
NICS check could not access information contained
in Virginia's mental health database. According to
Virginia State Police data for January through
September 1999, Virginia's instant check system
denied 51 firearms transactions based on
information in the state's mental health
database-information that would not have been
available to the FBI through NICS.10

Another example is the wanted-persons file in NCIC
2000. This national file may not contain
information on every state arrest warrant issued.
According to FBI officials, at one time NCIC would
not accept an outstanding warrant if the
originating state would not agree to extradition
if the person was apprehended in another state.
That restriction was lifted prior to NICS
implementation so that NCIC 2000 now accepts all
state warrants. However, each individual agency
that issues warrants is responsible for entering
their warrants into NCIC 2000. Consequently, there
is no way to tell whether outstanding warrants
have been issued by state and local agencies but
not entered into NCIC 2000. On the other hand,
most states can access information about wanted
fugitives through their own state databases. For
example, Colorado and Virginia state officials
said that they can access their own outstanding
warrants through state or local databases,
regardless of whether the warrant had been entered
into NCIC 2000.

Moreover, information regarding restraining orders
is not always available through NCIC 2000 because
of incompatibilities between state records and
NCIC 2000 records requirements. However, state
agencies that conduct background checks would have
access to state or local databases where the
restraining order information was originally
recorded. In Colorado, for example, the FBI
recently approved the transfer of a firearm to an
individual who should have been prohibited from
purchasing a firearm due to an active restraining
order. The information regarding the restraining
order was not available to the FBI through NCIC;
but, according to state officials, it would have
been accessible to a Colorado law enforcement
agency. The prohibited individual purchased the
firearm and used it to kill three children.11
According to FBI officials, each individual agency
that issues restraining orders is responsible for
entering them into NCIC 2000. Consequently, there
is no way to tell whether such orders have been
issued by state and local agencies but not entered
into NCIC 2000. FBI officials acknowledged that
compatibility problems exist in some states and
noted that these states are working with NCIC 2000
officials to resolve the problems.12

In its February 2000 report (as cited above) on
criminal history records, BJS reported that NICS
background checks performed by states accessed
more complete state-level criminal records-as well
as certain nonfelon information-compared with NICS
checks performed by the FBI. As a result, in those
states where the FBI performs NICS checks, BJS
reported that there were likely to be more
firearms sales to ineligible purchasers than in
states where state agencies performed the checks.

FBI officials acknowledged that states can, in
some instances, access additional databases;
however, they also noted that the usefulness of
such access may be limited with respect to long
guns bought outside the purchaser's state of
residence.  The officials explained that:

ï¿½    In most states, it is lawful to purchase a
long gun without being a resident of that state.
Thus, an individual could cross state lines to buy
a long gun, even after that person had been denied
the right to purchase a firearm in his or her
state of residence.
ï¿½    Therefore, if a state possesses information
showing a person is prohibited from purchasing
firearms, such information must be included in a
national system to be most effective. Otherwise,
such information will serve to stop only in-state
purchases and will create a false sense of
security.

Finally, as discussed in more detail below, we
note that during the first year of NICS
implementation, the FBI estimates that it was
unable to resolve, within 21 days, about 75,000
background checks-roughly 1.7 percent of the 4.4
million checks that the FBI conducted. According
to FBI officials, these background checks could
not be completed because information on arrest
dispositions could not be obtained to verify the
purchaser's eligibility. The number of these
"unresolved" background checks perhaps would have
been fewer if the checks had been conducted by
state law enforcement agencies-given that these
agencies generally have access to additional data
and databases for background check research
purposes.

State Agencies May Be Better Able to Interpret
State Laws
     Many states have enacted their own unique
statutes regarding the sale and possession of
firearms-including requirements for firearms
purchase permits, mandatory waiting periods, and
notification to state or local authorities. These
state laws can have complex provisions,
particularly regarding the restoration of an
individual's rights to possess a firearm, once
those rights have been revoked (e.g., because of
criminal activity). For example, according to ATF
officials, persons convicted of a criminal offense
in Colorado have their federal firearms rights
automatically restored under the following
conditions:

ï¿½    A person convicted of a misdemeanor offense
(including domestic violence) who was convicted
and completed his or her sentence.
ï¿½    A person convicted of a violent felony
offense who completed his or her sentence prior to
July 1, 1994, and at least 10 years had elapsed
since completion of the sentence.
ï¿½    A person convicted of a nonviolent felony
offense who completed his or her sentence prior to
July 1, 1994.13

As such, in performing firearms background checks,
state agencies may be better able to interpret
their own state laws to determine a person's
eligibility to purchase firearms. That is, state
agencies generally have a better understanding of
how their own state laws apply to an individual's
eligibility to purchase a firearm in their state.

The FBI agreed that state agencies may be better
able than the FBI to interpret their own
applicable state laws. Also, this belief is
consistent with our analysis of appeals decisions
regarding firearms-purchase denials made by the
FBI under NICS. For example, during the first year
of NICS operations:

ï¿½    About 22 percent of the appeals (on which a
final decision had been reached as of November 30,
1999) were successful-that is, the denials were
reversed.
ï¿½    About 42 percent of reversed denials (for
which the reason for reversal was available)
occurred because FBI examiners had misinterpreted
state statutes or records in making the initial
denials.

Although the percentage of denials reversed for
this reason was over 50 percent of all reversals
in January and February of 1999, it declined to
about 30 percent in October and November of 1999 .

To help improve interpretation of state laws, the
FBI contacted the states via mass mailing in June
1999 to request that the states validate their
firearms laws. Subsequently, the FBI made state
law information widely accessible electronically
within the law enforcement community by including
such information in the Law Enforcement On-Line
Internet site.14

Appendix III presents more information about
variations in state firearms purchase laws.

Possible Barriers to State Participation in NICS
     The FBI acknowledges that states may have
certain advantages in conducting NICS background
checks, including access to additional data in
their own state and the ability to better
interpret their own criminal history records and
firearms laws. Further, according to the FBI, the
functioning of NICS would be more effective and
efficient if more or all states were full
participants (i.e., if each state had a designated
agency for conducting background checks). Despite
the potential advantages of states conducting
background checks, any consideration of ways to
encourage states to be full participants in NICS
would need to recognize the following mitigating
factors:

ï¿½    States may have competing fiscal priorities
that prevent them from initiating or expanding
their role in NICS. Because the FBI performs NICS
checks without charging a fee, some states may
consider performing this effort at the state level
to be a waste of state resources. According to FBI
officials, one state-South Carolina-recently
dropped out as a full participant in NICS, and
four other states may be at risk to drop out
because they are currently operating under
executive order rather than state statute. Federal
funding proposals-including a NICS user fee and
direct appropriations-have been developed that
could increase state participation in NICS;
however, these proposals have not been approved by
Congress.
ï¿½    States that already conduct NICS background
checks for handguns-such as Maryland and
Washington-may not want to expand their
responsibilities to long guns, which may be viewed
as less of a public safety risk than handguns.
And, as noted above, the FBI is already performing
long-gun background checks in those states free of
charge.
ï¿½    Some states may be philosophically unwilling
to participate in NICS, as demonstrated by the
various legal challenges to the local background
check requirements of interim Brady.15 Because NICS
was also established under the Brady Act, some
states may consider NICS implementation to be a
federal government responsibility.
ï¿½    States may encounter difficulties in
conducting timely or complete background checks
for a variety of administrative reasons, including
a lack of resources or expertise. During early
1999, for example, the Maryland State Police
encountered difficulties in processing NICS
background checks in a timely manner, allowing a
number of prohibited persons to purchase handguns.

Default Proceed Transactions Increase Public
Safety and Other Concerns
During the first 10 months of NICS implementation,
2,519 individuals who were sold firearms were
later determined by the FBI to be prohibited
persons. These default proceeds were the result of
NICS background checks that could not be completed
by the FBI within the 3 business days allowed by
statute under permanent Brady. After 3 business
days elapsed, these transactions were considered
default proceeds, and the gun dealers were then
legally able to transfer the firearms without an
affirmative response from the FBI as to the
purchasers' eligibility.16

     Default proceeds that result in firearms
being transferred to prohibited persons are a
cause for concern because they present public
safety risks and place resource demands on law
enforcement agencies in retrieving the firearms.
According to FBI procedure, when a NICS examiner
discovers that a firearm has been transferred to a
prohibited individual, the FBI is to notify (1)
the local police department, as determined by the
purchaser's address and (2) ATF headquarters. In
each one of these instances, ATF guidance then
requires that an investigation be initiated and
attempted retrieval of the firearm be coordinated
with state or local law enforcement to ensure
public safety.

FBI Attributes Default Proceeds to Lack of Arrest
Dispositions in Automated State Criminal History
Records
     According to FBI officials, default proceeds
occur primarily due to lack of arrest dispositions
in automated state criminal history records. As a
result, for some delayed transactions, the FBI is
unable to determine the purchaser's eligibility
within the 3 days allowed by law under permanent
Brady. A typical example of a delayed NICS
transaction involves a record showing a felony-
related arrest (not a Brady disqualifier) but no
information about whether the case was prosecuted
and resulted in a conviction (which would be a
Brady disqualifier). In these instances,
additional research is needed before the
transaction can be approved or denied. FBI
examiners typically must contact a state or local
entity that has the needed information-often a
local court-to determine the purchaser's
eligibility. The ability to obtain the required
disposition information in a timely manner depends
on several factors, including whether the court is
open, the willingness of the court's staff to
assist the FBI, and the availability and
accessibility of the disposition information.

     The problem of incomplete and/or inaccessible
state criminal history records is a long-standing
criminal justice issue. Appendix IV gives more
details about this issue, including the
relationship between background checks and the
quality of automated records.

Three Business Days for Research Have Been
Insufficient to Prevent Default Proceed
Transactions
As mentioned previously, during the first 10
months of permanent Brady implementation-November
30, 1998, through September 30, 1999-2,519
individuals who were sold guns were later
determined by the FBI to be prohibited persons.
FBI data on these 2,519 default proceeds show that
an average of 25 business days elapsed between the
initial NICS inquiry and the date that the FBI
initiated retrieval of the firearms. As table 2
shows:

ï¿½    5 percent (118) of these transactions were
resolved in 5 business days or less, the amount of
time previously allowed under interim Brady to
conduct a background check;
ï¿½    77 percent (1,937) of these transactions were
resolved in 30 business days or less; and
ï¿½    91 percent (2,288) of these transactions were
resolved in 60 business days or less.

Table 2: Number of Business Days Taken to Identify
Default Proceed Transactions Involving Prohibited
Purchasers (as of September 30, 1999)
Time to      Total number  Percent of   Cumulative
retrieval              of transactions      percent
initiation   transactions
Within 5              118          5%           5%
days
6 to 10 days          378          15           20
11 to 20              936          37           57
days
21 to 30              505          20           77
days
31 to 60              351          14           91
days
More than 60          192           8           99
days
Unknowna               39           2          100
Total               2,519        100%         100%
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to
rounding.
aFor these transactions, the FBI data did not
contain a valid NICS transaction date and
retrieval decision date.
Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Further, the actual number of default proceed
transactions involving sales of firearms to
prohibited persons might be higher than the 2,519
already identified by the FBI. For example, during
the first year of NICS implementation, the FBI
estimates that it was unable to resolve, within 21
days, about 75,000 background checks-roughly 1.7
percent of the 4.4 million checks that the FBI
conducted. According to FBI officials, these
delayed transactions could not be completed
because the FBI was never able to obtain
information on arrest dispositions in order to
verify the purchaser's eligibility. Because, as
reported by the FBI, background checks delayed
more than 24 hours are more likely to involve
prohibited persons than other NICS checks, some of
these 75,000 transactions potentially represent
firearms sold to prohibited persons.17 Given the
increased public safety concerns, the additional
demands on law enforcement-particularly ATF-and
the exposure of law enforcement agents to the
risks associated with firearms retrievals, it is
therefore important to explore options for
reducing the number of these transactions.

Options for Improving NICS and Reducing the Number
of Default Proceed Transactions
     As mentioned previously, in researching
delayed NICS transactions, the FBI often must rely
on the cooperation of state and local agencies to
obtain information-such as the disposition of an
arrest-needed to determine a purchaser's
eligibility. To facilitate this process, the FBI
has requested that each state establish a contact
point that will be responsible for assisting the
FBI (and other states) with obtaining disposition
or other relevant information. When the
disposition of a potentially disqualifying arrest
is not directly accessible by computer, under FBI
procedure, NICS examiners are to notify the
applicable state contact point by telephone, fax,
and/or law enforcement teletype. Additional
notifications may also be necessary to other state
or local agencies, such as courts and arresting
agencies. Although the FBI identified a goal in
its fiscal year 2000 budget that all delayed
transactions would be resolved within 15 minutes
per record (on average), the ability to obtain
such disposition information in a timely
manner-even within 3 business days-is often beyond
the FBI's control. Therefore, options to improve
NICS and reduce the number of default proceed
transactions may need to focus on legislative,
rather than administrative, efforts.

One option for improving NICS and reducing or
minimizing the number of default proceed
transactions is to continue funding to provide
federal grants to states for improving the quality
and completeness of automated criminal history
records. Another possible option is to encourage
increased state participation in NICS by providing
some form of federal financial assistance.
Finally, the 3 business-day default proceed
requirement of the Brady Act could be amended to
treat differently those potential purchasers with
arrests for disqualifying offenses with no
disposition information. These options should be
considered complementary, rather than mutually
exclusive.

Federal Grant Funding to Improve State Criminal
History Records
Because, according to the FBI, most default
proceeds occur due to a lack of arrest
dispositions in automated state criminal history
records, one option for reducing or minimizing
these delayed transactions is to help states
upgrade the quality and completeness of these
records. A relevant federal effort ongoing since
1995 is the National Criminal History Improvement
Program (NCHIP), which provides grant funds to
states. Administered by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, NCHIP has provided funding to assist
states to improve the quality and accessibility of
their criminal history records, in order to
support the implementation of NICS and enhance the
effectiveness of NICS background checks. Federal
obligations under NCHIP totaled about $293 million
during fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
Additionally, 5 percent of the funds awarded to
states each year under the Byrne Formula Grants
Program are to be used for improving criminal
justice records.18

For fiscal year 1999, NCHIP guidelines called for
improving NICS background checks by (1) increasing
states' commitment to the implementation of NICS,
(2) increasing state participation in III, and (3)
supporting state court efforts to improve the
completeness of criminal history records.
Regarding III, for example, the NCHIP announcement
stated that state participation in III is critical
to ensuring that the most accurate and complete
criminal records are available instantly for NICS
firearms checks. Justice officials said that they
plan to address NICS implementation issues-such as
automation and accessibility of records on arrest
dispositions-in future years by seeking increased
funding through NCHIP grants. For fiscal year
2000, $35 million was specifically appropriated
for NCHIP grants, and the President's budget for
fiscal year 2001 requests $70 million for NCHIP.

Financial Incentives to Encourage State
Participation in NICS
Because states can have advantages over the FBI in
conducting NICS background checks-including access
to additional data in their own state and the
ability to better interpret their own criminal
history records and firearms laws-another option
for improving NICS' effectiveness and reducing the
number of default proceed transactions is to
increase state participation in NICS. The
following are several approaches that could
encourage such participation:

ï¿½    NICS User Fee.  Establishing a NICS user fee
could remove a disincentive for states to be NICS
participants. Currently, states have less
incentive to participate because the federal
government performs the NICS check free of charge.
The FBI has previously introduced budget proposals
to fund NICS operations with a user fee. Congress,
however, has acted to prohibit a NICS user fee by
including prohibiting language in the Department
of Justice's fiscal year 1999 and 2000
appropriations acts.19

ï¿½    Direct Appropriations.  Through direct
appropriations, states could be funded to
establish and/or operate NICS units. The U.S.
Senate passed a provision in its 1999 Juvenile
Justice bill that would have authorized $40
million in direct appropriations to states that
participate in NICS.20  The House version of the
bill differed markedly from the Senate version, so
the legislation was sent to conference to resolve
the differences. However, the 1999 legislative
session ended without any further action being
taken.
ï¿½    Criminal Justice Grants.  Although the
Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot be
required or mandated to conduct Brady background
checks, the Court has recognized elsewhere that
Congress, in general, may impose reasonable
conditions on the receipt of federal funds by
states.21 Incentive grants, perhaps associated with
an existing criminal justice grant program, could
be offered to states that agree to become NICS
participants. One such example of an incentive
grant is the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994,22 which authorized federal
incentive grants to eligible states for building
or expanding correctional facilities for violent
offenders, if the states implemented measures
ensuring stricter sentences for violent offenders.
In addition to incentive grants, the NCHIP grant
program already authorizes funding for, among
other things, states to establish programs to
participate in NICS. However, NCHIP grant
requirements currently preclude such funds from
being used to cover any ongoing operating costs of
conducting the background checks.
Amending the Brady Act to Minimize Default Proceed
Transactions
Given the long-term nature of efforts to improve
automated criminal history records and the
possibility that not all states would agree to
become NICS participants, another option involves
amending the 3 business-day default proceed
requirement of the Brady Act to treat differently
those potential purchasers who had been arrested
for disqualifying offenses and disposition
information concerning the arrest was not readily
available. Washington state offers one approach
that could be considered. In Washington, which is
a partial participant in NICS (handguns only),
state law allows up to 5 days to perform a
background check. However, if available records
indicate the prospective purchaser has an arrest
for a potentially disqualifying offense, a hold
for up to 30 days can be placed on the
transaction's approval, pending receipt of
disposition information to verify the purchaser's
eligibility to possess a firearm. After 30 days,
if the disposition of the arrest still cannot be
verified, an extension of the hold may be
initiated by obtaining a judicial order showing
good cause.23

Different approaches are offered by the states of
Colorado and Georgia, both of which are full-
participant states under NICS. Operating under
temporary state authority,24 Colorado can deny a
purchaser with an open disqualifying arrest (such
as a felony), even if the disposition cannot be
obtained within the 3 days allowed under permanent
Brady, thus obviating the need for additional time
to further research the transaction. Georgia has
issued regulations stating that, where a
background check identifies the existence of a
criminal record that is not immediately available
to determine the eligibility of the purchaser
(e.g., an arrest disposition), the gun dealer may
not transfer the firearm until being advised by
the state that the purchaser is not prohibited.
According to Colorado and Georgia state officials,
because of the public safety issues involved in a
prohibited person obtaining a firearm, when a
background check reveals a potentially
disqualifying record, it is more prudent to deny
the transaction and place the burden on the
individual to prove (through an appeals process)
that he or she should not be prohibited from
purchasing a firearm.

Amending the 3 business-day default proceed
requirement of the Brady Act could have a
significant impact on reducing the number of
default proceeds involving prohibited persons and
mitigating public safety concerns. For example:

ï¿½    Adopting either the Colorado or the Georgia
approach would, for all intents and purposes,
eliminate default proceed transactions, including
those where a prohibited person obtains a firearm.
The Colorado approach, however, could result in
some purchasers being incorrectly denied based
solely on arrest records, with the burden then
being placed on the purchasers to appeal the
decisions and correct the records. The Georgia
approach would not result in incorrect denials;
however, it places no limit on the amount of time
allowed to research the transaction.
ï¿½    Under the Washington state approach, if a 30
business-day hold had been in effect during the
first 10 months of NICS, the number of default
proceed transactions involving prohibited persons
would have been reduced by over 75 percent. Also,
FBI data suggested that such a hold on delayed
transactions would have affected only about 88,000
(or 2 percent) of all FBI NICS transactions-those
that the FBI has reported to be almost 20 times
more likely to involve a prohibited person than
transactions involving the average gun buyer.25
Therefore, additional time to research such
delayed transactions could play a significant role
in preventing firearms sales to potentially
prohibited persons.

Scope and Methodology
In performing our work, we interviewed officials
and reviewed documentation at the FBI's NICS
Operations Center (Clarksburg, WV). Also, we
contacted state and/or local law enforcement
officials in six states-Colorado, Georgia,
Maryland, Texas, Virginia, and
Washington-jurisdictions we judgmentally selected
to cover a variety of background check roles and
responsibilities possible under interim and
permanent Brady. Generally, in conducting this
assignment, we obtained agency statistics and
other information. We did not fully assess the
reliability or accuracy of data provided to us by
agency officials; however, we did discuss the
sources of the data with agency officials. Also,
we worked with agency officials to reconcile any
discrepancies we identified in the data. We did
our audit work between May 1999 and January 2000
in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Appendix V gives more details
about our objectives, scope, and methodology.

Conclusions
     Under permanent Brady, creation of the NICS
Index database provides the FBI and state agencies
with centralized access to certain nonfelony,
noncriminal disqualifying information that was not
easily available to state and local law
enforcement agencies under interim Brady. However,
1 year after it was implemented, the NICS Index
has yet to reach its full potential in that it
contains relatively few records for several
categories of prohibited purchasers. The FBI is
currently taking steps to contact federal agencies
and states to identify the universe of available
disqualifying records and have those records
incorporated into the NICS Index. Despite this
effort, however, privacy concerns and state laws
may prevent some types of records-such as those
involving substance abuse or mental health
treatment-from becoming widely accessible through
the NICS Index.

     In many respects, state agencies are better
positioned than the FBI to conduct NICS background
checks. State agencies have access to all of the
information available to the FBI through NICS,
plus additional information available only to
their respective state. Further, state agencies
may be better able to interpret their respective
state's criminal records and applicable firearms
laws. The FBI acknowledges that NICS'
effectiveness could be enhanced with full
participation by more states. However, at the time
of our review, most states were either
nonparticipants or partial participants in NICS.
Increased state participation in NICS may be
hindered by fiscal pressures, lack of interest in
long gun regulation, unwillingness to implement an
essentially federal program, or administrative
difficulties in administering NICS background
checks.

     Default proceed transactions involving
prohibited persons who purchased firearms-over
2,500 identified by the FBI during the first 10
months of permanent Brady-increase concerns about
public safety, create resource demands on law
enforcement (particularly ATF) in retrieving
firearms from prohibited persons, and expose law
enforcement agents to potential risk associated
with firearms retrievals. Two long-term options
for improving NICS operations and reducing the
number of these default proceed transactions would
be to (1) continue funding to provide federal
grants to states for improving the quality and
completeness of automated criminal history records
and (2) provide financial incentives to states to
increase the number that participate in NICS. A
third option would be to amend the 3 business-day
default proceed requirement of the Brady Act to
treat differently those potential purchasers who
had been arrested for disqualifying offenses and
disposition information concerning the arrest was
not readily available. Some states already have
laws or other provisions to minimize the number of
default proceed transactions. Under Washington
state law, for example, a hold for up to 30 days
can be placed on a handgun purchase transaction,
pending receipt of arrest disposition information
regarding the prospective purchaser's eligibility
to purchase the handgun.

FBI data suggested that allowing more time to
research delayed NICS transactions would have
affected a relatively small percentage of all FBI
NICS transactions-about 2 percent-that took more
than 3 business days to resolve. However,
additional research time may have prevented
firearms sales to prohibited persons. For example,
based on data for the first 10 months of NICS
implementation, the number of default proceeds
involving sales of firearms to prohibited persons
would have been reduced by 5 percent with 5 days
of research, by 57 percent with 20 days, by 77
percent with 30 days, and by 91 percent for 60
days.

Matters for Congressional Consideration
     The Congress may wish to consider one or more
options for reducing or minimizing the number of
default proceed transactions involving the
transfer of firearms to prohibited persons. One
option is to continue providing federal grants to
states for improving the quality and completeness
of automated criminal history records. Another
possible option is to encourage increased state
participation in NICS by providing some form of
federal financial assistance. Also, the 3 business-
day default proceed requirement of the Brady Act
could be amended to treat differently those
potential purchasers who had been arrested for
disqualifying offenses and arrest disposition
information was not readily available.

Agency Comments
On March 1, 2000, we provided a draft of this
report for comment to the Department of Justice
and the Department of the Treasury.

ï¿½    On March 24, 2000, Justice's Audit Liaison
Office (Justice Management Division) provided us
with a written response indicating that the draft
had been reviewed and commented on by
representatives of the FBI, BJS, the Office
Justice Programs, the Executive Office for U.S.
Attorneys, the Office of Policy Development, and
the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.
ï¿½    On March 24, 2000, Treasury's Office of
Finance and Administration (Office of Under
Secretary for Enforcement) provided us with a
written response indicating that the draft report
had been reviewed and commented on by
representatives of Treasury's Office of
Enforcement and ATF .

Department of Justice
Justice generally concurred with the findings
presented in the draft report and provided various
technical clarifications and/or updated
information, which we incorporated in this report
where appropriate. Regarding default proceed
transactions, Justice expressed agreement with the
three possible solutions or options that we set
forth and also noted that these were not mutually
exclusive. More specifically, Justice commented
substantially as follows regarding the options:

ï¿½    Option 1:  Federal Grants to Improve State
Criminal History Records.  Justice believes that
continuing NCHIP funding is critical and supports
enhanced funding for the program. The
administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request
reflects a doubling of the current level of
funding-i.e., from $35 million in fiscal year 2000
to $70 million in fiscal year 2001. Also, Justice
believes that the NCHIP grants will have their
effect only over the long term. The FBI, state,
and local law enforcement have been working for
years to centralize all criminal information into
a national system, and Justice will continue to
work with the states toward achieving that goal.
The use of a national system is important because
the U.S. population is very mobile and using 50
different databases to access information
concerning firearm disabilities is neither
feasible nor desirable.

ï¿½    Option 2:  Financial Incentives to Encourage
State Participation in NICS.  Since well before
the implementation of NICS, the FBI has strongly
supported the concept of states serving as points
of contact for conducting background checks. Under
permanent Brady, the FBI continues to believe that
states are better positioned than the FBI to
conduct background checks. Similarly, Justice
strongly supports having states serve as points of
contacts, and Justice believes that states can
perform more thorough checks for the reasons
discussed in the draft report. However, it is not
clear from any data that (1) having more states
serve as points of contacts would reduce the
volume of unresolved checks and (2) the states
would be better able to track down missing
criminal dispositions, which is the major reason
for default proceeds. When arrest disposition
information is not found in automated state
criminal history systems, NICS examiners typically
must contact the appropriate courts of record to
obtain the disposition. Thus, providing funding to
the states without focusing it for the courts is
unlikely to resolve the issue of missing
dispositions. The FBI has already collected and
entered more than 80,000 such dispositions into
the FBI criminal history database and forwarded
these dispositions to the appropriate states to
update their own criminal history databases.
ï¿½    Option 3:  Amending the Brady Act to Minimize
Default Proceed Transactions.  Justice takes no
exception to this option. Whereas option 1 is a
long-term solution, amending the Brady Act to
alter the 3-day window would provide a much more
immediate reduction in default proceeds. The
number of default proceeds relative to the number
of total background checks is quite small;
however, the risks and costs associated with the
occurrence of default proceeds are significant. In
the judgment of Justice, the public benefits in
extending the 3 business-day default period
substantially outweigh the inconvenience that
would thereby be incurred by the very small
minority of gun buyers. Therefore, Justice
suggests that Congress give serious consideration
to altering the 3-day window.
     Moreover, regarding option 3, Justice
commented that it has considered the issue of
fairness to repeat purchasers. That is, Justice
noted that since many gun purchasers are repeat
purchasers, if the Brady Act were amended to
extend the 3-day window, fairness to nonprohibited
applicants requires that any dispositions found
during the lengthened background check period be
subsequently included in the applicable electronic
criminal history records. In this regard, NCHIP
provides federal funds to states to cover
specifically the costs of entering dispositions
found during NICS background checks into criminal
history records.

Department of the Treasury
Treasury said that the report was thorough,
expressed concurrence with the report's findings,
and provided some technical clarifications, which
we incorporated in this report where appropriate.
Regarding default proceed transactions resulting
in the sale of firearms to prohibited persons,
Treasury expressed support for the various options
we presented for addressing this issue. Also,
Treasury noted that:

ï¿½    Responding to default proceed transactions is
a resource-intensive, potentially dangerous
mission, which diverts ATF's already limited
special agent resources from other investigations.
ï¿½    Clarification of default proceed procedures
and analysis of the origin, cause, and status of
unresolved background checks would be helpful in
reducing their number in the future, as well as
determining medium-term resource implications for
Treasury in meeting its enforcement obligations.

As we arranged with your offices, unless you
publicly announce this report's contents earlier,
we plan no further distribution of it until 30
days after the date of this report. At that time,
we will send a copy of this report to Senator
Strom Thurmond, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice Oversight, and to other relevant
congressional committees. We will also send copies
to The Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General; The
Honorable Louis Freeh, FBI Director; The Honorable
Lawrence Summers, the Secretary of the Treasury;
and The Honorable Bradley Buckles, ATF Director.
This report will be provided to other interested
parties upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this
report or wish to discuss the matter further,
please contact me at (202) 512-8777, or Danny R.
Burton at (214) 777-5600. Other key contributors
to this report are acknowledged in appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Laurie E. Ekstrand
Director, Administration of
 Justice Issues

_______________________________
1The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady
Act), Public Law 103-159, amended the Gun Control
Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-618). Under federal law,
persons are prohibited from receiving a firearm if
they (1) have been convicted of, or are under
indictment for, a felony; (2) are a fugitive from
justice; (3) are unlawful drug users or addicts;
(4) have been involuntarily committed to a mental
institution or judged mentally incompetent; (5)
are aliens, such as those illegally or unlawfully
in the United States, or certain aliens admitted
under a nonimmigrant visa; (6) have been
dishonorably discharged from the military; (7)
have renounced their U.S. citizenship; (8) are
under a domestic violence restraining order; or
(9) have been convicted of a domestic violence
misdemeanor. These prohibited categories are also
commonly referred to as "Brady disqualifiers."
2 NICS background checks are to be performed in
connection with firearms transfers and are not to
be limited to firearms sales (see 63 FR 58306).
When we use the term "potential buyer" or
"potential purchaser," we are also referring to
other potential firearms recipients, such as
individuals redeeming pawned firearms.
3 In commenting on a draft of this report in March
2000, Justice officials noted that in some full-
participant states the background checks continue
to be carried out by local law enforcement
officers; that is, the checks are carried out by
the agencies that were previously CLEOs under
interim Brady.
4 Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
5 In commenting on a draft of this report in March
2000, Justice officials noted that the Bureau of
Justice Statistics eventually is to report on the
number of denials resulting from background checks
conducted by state agencies.
6 Gun Control: Implementation of the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System
(GAO/GGD/AIMD-00-64, Feb. 29, 2000).
7 NCIC 2000, an upgraded version of NCIC, became
operational on July 11, 1999.
8 U.S. Department of Justice, BJS, Continuing
Criminal History Records Improvement Evaluation:
Final 1994-98 Report (NCJ-179768), February 2000.
9 For delayed transactions that require research
beyond the initial automated inquiry, the FBI also
accesses additional in-house automated databases.
10 Once denied, however, Virginia could enter the
names of these persons into the NICS Index's
"denied persons" file, after which that
information would be available to the FBI or any
other state agency when conducting a NICS
background check.
11 Although currently a full-participant in NICS,
at the time of this incident, Colorado had
discontinued its state-run instant check
program-which had been in operation since 1994-due
to financial considerations. Following the
publicity surrounding the incident, funding for
the program was reinstated by executive order,
pending permanent authorization by the Colorado
legislature.
12 In commenting on a draft of this report in March
2000, Justice officials also noted that a federal
grant program (the National Criminal History
Improvement Program) specifically funds states to
overcome these technical obstacles and submit
their records to the FBI's national systems.
13 However, as of July 1, 1994, all convicted
felons (violent or nonviolent) in Colorado became
permanently disqualified from possessing firearms
under state law. Consequently, although felons
whose rights were completely restored prior to
July 1, 1994, are not considered to be prohibited
under federal law, they would still be prohibited
under state law.
14 Law Enforcement On-Line is a secure law
enforcement Internet site managed by the FBI,
which provides communication and information
services to the federal, state, and local law
enforcement community.
15 In Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898), the Supreme
Court ruled that the Brady Act's interim (phase I)
provision commanding the CLEO of each local
jurisdiction to conduct background checks was
unconstitutional in that it compelled state
officers to execute federal law.
16 A small number of these-33-actually occurred
within 3 business days. According to FBI
officials, for these delayed NICS transactions the
gun dealer transferred the firearm to a prohibited
person before 3 business days had elapsed, without
having received a proceed or deny response from
NICS.
17 In commenting on a draft of this report in March
2000, Treasury officials noted that the status of
these default proceed transactions is unknown and
could result in a substantial increase in ATF
enforcement obligations if these transactions are
later determined to involve prohibited persons.
18 Crime Technology: Federal Assistance to State
and Local Law Enforcement (GAO/GGD-99-101, June 7,
1999), pp. 29 and 31.
19 Public Law 105-277 (Oct. 21, 1998) and Public
Law 106-113 (Nov. 29, 1999), respectively.
20 Title VIII, section 861, S. 254, passed by the
Senate on May 20, 1999.
21 New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144, 165 (1992);
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206 (1987).
22 Public Law 103-322 (Sept. 13, 1994).
23 Washington's 30-day hold rule also applies to
firearms transactions where the background check
indicates open criminal charges, pending criminal
proceedings, pending commitment proceedings, or an
outstanding warrant.
24 This authority was incorporated into legislation
permanently reauthorizing Colorado's instant check
program, which was enacted into state law on March
7, 2000.
25FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services
Division, National Instant Criminal Background
Check System: Operations Report (November 30, 1998
- December 31, 1999).  More specifically, FBI data
for the first 13 months of NICS implementation
show that delayed background checks taking more
than 24 hours accounted for about 38 percent of
the total number of NICS denials, compared with
the overall NICS denial rate of about 2 percent.

Appendix I
Overview of Firearms Purchase Application and
Background Check Procedures Under Interim and
Permanent Brady
Page 33GAO/GGD-00-56 Gun Control: Options for Impr
oving NICS
This appendix provides a general overview of
firearms purchase application and background check
procedures under the interim and permanent
provisions of the Brady Act (effective February
28, 1994, and November 30, 1998, respectively).

Interim Brady
Effective February 28, 1994, the Brady Act's phase
I or interim provisions required licensed firearms
dealers to, among other things, request a presale
background check on handgun purchasers. The checks
generally were to be conducted by the chief law
enforcement officer (CLEO)1 in the purchaser's
residence community to determine, on the basis of
available records, if the individual was legally
prohibited from buying the firearm under the
provisions of federal, state, or local law. The
sale was not to be completed for 5 business days
unless the dealer received an approval from the
CLEO before that time. If the CLEO did not contact
the dealer within the 5-day period, the dealer
could make the sale unless the dealer had reason
to believe the transaction would be unlawful.

Under interim Brady, the prospective handgun
purchaser was to complete a form-generally
referred to as the Brady form2-giving his name,
date of birth, and residence address and
certifying that he or she was not a member of
various categories prohibited from buying a
firearm. Then, the dealer was to provide notice of
the form's contents to the CLEO of the area in
which the buyer's residence was located. The CLEO
then was to "make a reasonable effort" to
ascertain within 5 business days whether the sale
would violate federal, state, or local law,
including research in whatever state and local
recordkeeping systems were available and the FBI-
operated National Crime Information Center files.

The CLEO could allow the sale to proceed at any
time during the 5-day waiting period by advising
the gun dealer that the applicant had not been
determined to be a prohibited person.
Alternatively, if not notified to the contrary,
the gun dealer could assume that the purchaser was
not disqualified and could complete the sale upon
expiration of the 5-day period. However, if the
search revealed that the applicant was ineligible
to receive a handgun, the CLEO was to notify the
dealer (without providing the reason) that the
sale was denied. The CLEO could also instruct the
dealer to refer the buyer to the CLEO if the buyer
had questions or otherwise challenged the denial.

Further, under interim Brady, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) categorized
each state as either a "Brady state" or a "Brady-
alternative state."3 The Brady states were those
that had to comply with the 5-day waiting period
provision to facilitate background checks by
CLEOs. Each Brady-alternative state was so
designated by ATF because each state had an
"alternative" system to the federal 5-day waiting
period. Generally, the alternative system was
either (1) a permit or other preapproved system or
(2) a point-of-sale or instant check system. Under
either alternative, state law had to require that
an authorized official verify that the
"information available" to such official did not
indicate that the prospective purchaser's
possession of the handgun would violate the law.
Also, according to ATF officials, the same minimum
standard for background checks applied to both
Brady and Brady-alternative states. That is, at a
minimum, a check of criminal history records was
required to screen out all convicted felons.

Table I.1 shows each state's status under interim
Brady, as well as the number of CLEOs responsible
for performing background checks.4 More details
about interim Brady are presented in our 1996
report.5

Table I.1: State Participation Under Interim Brady
            Orginal   Brady     Brady-   Number of
             Brady   states  alternative    CLEOs
            states  (11/29/98   states   (11/29/98
           (3/1/94)     )     (11/29/98)        )
Alabama                                        67
Alaska                                         35
Arizona                                         1
Arkansas                                        1
California                                      1
Colorado                                        1
Connecticu                                      1
t
Delaware                                        1
Florida                                         1
Georgia                                         1
Hawaii                                          4
Idaho                                           1
Illinois                                        1
Indiana                                         1
Iowa                                          100
Kansas                                        123
Kentucky                                        5
Louisiana                                      64
Maine                                         129
Maryland                                        1
Massachuse                                    270
tts
Michigan                                      595
Minnesota                                     568
Mississipp                                    262
i
Missouri                                      115
Montana                                        56
Nebraska                                       95
Nevada                                          1
New                                             1
Hampshire
New Jersey                                    505
New Mexico                                    113
New York                                       58
North                                         100
Carolina
North                                          53
Dakota
Ohio                                            1
Oklahoma                                      440
Oregon                                          1
Pennsylvan                                     67
ia
Rhode                                          39
Island
South                                           1
Carolina
South                                          66
Dakota
Tennessee                                      96
Texas                                         991
Utah                                            1
Vermont                                        22
Virginia                                        1
Washington                                    291
West                                            1
Virginia
Wisconsin                                       1
Wyoming                                        40
Total         32       23         27        5,390
Source: BJS, Presale Handgun Checks, the Brady
Interim Period, 1994-98 (June 1999).

Permanent Brady
Under the Brady Act's phase II or permanent
provisions, the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS) began operations on
November 30, 1998. NICS is managed by the FBI but
can be accessed by designated state agencies, as
discussed below. Federal firearms licensees
(FFLs)-particularly retail sales outlets-have a
key role in helping to ensure the integrity of the
background check process by verifying the identity
of the purchaser and relaying the purchaser's
personal identification information to the FBI or
to a designated state agency.6

Background
     Depending on the willingness of their state
government to act as a NICS liaison, FFLs contact
either the FBI or a designated state agency to
initiate background checks on individuals
purchasing firearms.7 Generally, depending upon
the state in which the FFL is conducting business
and the type of weapon purchased, there are three
methods of performing background checks:

ï¿½    In the 24 "nonparticipant" states in which
the state government has declined to designate a
point of contact or liaison for conducting
background checks, the FFLs are to contact the FBI
to initiate a background check on all firearms
transfers (permits or purchases). In addition to
24 states, this category also includes the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
ï¿½    In the 15 "full participant" states, FFLs are
to contact a designated state agency (e.g., state
police), which is to make the NICS background
check and determine whether the transfer or
issuance of a permit would violate state or
federal law.
ï¿½    In the remaining 11 "partial participant"
states, FFLs are to contact (1) the FBI for
background checks on long-gun purchases or permits
or (2) a designated state agency for background
checks on handgun purchases or permits.

Figure I.1 illustrates which states and
territories are in each of the three participation
categories as of February 1, 2000.

Figure I.1:  State and Territory Participation in
the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (as of Feb. 1, 2000)

Source: FBI data.

As previously discussed, FFLs contact either the
FBI or a designated state agency for a NICS
background check. Figure I.2 illustrates the
background check process in which the FFL contacts
the FBI, and figure I.3 illustrates the process in
which the FFL contacts a designated state agency.

Figure I.2:  Flowchart of NICS Background Checks
Conducted by the FBI

Figure I.2 (cont.)

aNICS contract personnel are not authorized to
review actual criminal history records. The
database query results seen by these personnel are
simply an indicator that there either is no match
(therefore, a proceed) or a potential match on one
or more of the databases (therefore, a delay).
bThe retrieval actions are discussed in appendix
III of this report.
Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Figure I.3:  Flowchart of NICS Background Checks
Conducted by Designated State Agencies

aIf after 3 business days the FFL has not been
notified of the background check results, the FFL
may transfer the firearm, unless a state statute
provides for a period greater than 3 business
days.
bStates are to have a process whereby denied
individuals may appeal the denial.
Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Although the two processes presented in figures
I.2 and I.3 are similar in that both entities use
NICS in the background check process, the
following narrative sections relate specifically
to the former (fig. I.2), that is, the process in
which the FFL contacts the FBI.

The FBI's NICS Program Office is responsible for
conducting the background checks and consists of
the following components:

ï¿½    Two Call Centers staffed with contract
personnel are located in Uniontown, PA, and
Moundsville, WV. FFLs are to use a toll-free
telephone number to contact a Call Center.
ï¿½    The NICS Operations Center (located in the
FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
complex in Clarksburg, WV) consists of two groups
of FBI legal instrument examiners-(1) research and
analysis and (2) customer service.

Firearm Buyer Must Complete ATF Form 4473
Purchasers of any firearm type (both handguns and
long guns) from FFLs are subject to a presale
background check. The prospective purchaser
initiates the process by completing the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' (ATF) Form 4473
(Firearms Transaction Record).8 Basically, in
completing this form, the individual is certifying
that he or she is not prohibited by federal law
from purchasing a firearm.

On the ATF Form 4473, the prospective buyer must
also provide the following descriptive data: (1)
name; (2) sex; (3) height; (4) weight; (5) race;
(6) residence address; (7) date of birth; (8)
place of birth; and (9) at the prospective buyer's
option, Social Security number or other
identification numbers, such as alien registration
number or military number. The FFL is to verify
the identity of the buyer by examining a valid
form of identification that contains a photograph
of the buyer.

FFL Contacts FBI Call Center Contract Staff, Who
Queries National Databases
After the ATF Form 4473 is completed, the FFL uses
a toll-free telephone number to contact an FBI
Call Center. Upon receiving the telephone request
for a background check, the Call Center's contract
staff are to verify the caller's FFL number and
code word, initiate a name-based search, and
provide a NICS transaction number (NTN)9 for a
valid inquiry.  Some of the descriptive data
provided on the ATF Form 4473 are to be provided
to the Call Center contract staff and are searched
against the records contained in the NICS' three
relevant national databases as follows:

National Crime Information Center 2000 (NCIC
2000).10 NCIC 2000 is the nation's most extensive
computerized criminal justice information system.
It consists of a central computer located in the
FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
complex, Clarksburg, WV; dedicated
telecommunications lines; and a coordinated
network of federal and state criminal justice
information systems. The NCIC 2000 system contains
files on the following subjects, among others:

ï¿½    The wanted persons file contains information
on persons for whom a federal warrant, felony
warrant, or serious misdemeanor warrant is
outstanding, including domestic and foreign
warrants.
ï¿½    The protection order file contains
information on restraining orders issued for the
purpose of preventing violent or threatening acts
or harassment against another person. Active
orders that contain a Brady Act indicator of "yes"
are disqualifiers.

Interstate Identification Index (III).11 Managed by
the FBI, III is an index-pointer system for the
interstate exchange of criminal history records.
III records include information on persons who are
indicted for, or have been convicted of, a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1
year or have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence.

NICS Index. Managed by the FBI, this database
contains information provided by federal and state
agencies about certain persons prohibited under
federal law12 from receiving or possessing a
firearm. The NICS Index is separate and apart from
NCIC and III, and all records in the NICS Index
are disqualifying records and will prohibit the
sale of a firearm. More specifically, the NICS
Index contains records on persons who

ï¿½    were discharged from the armed forces under
dishonorable conditions,
ï¿½    have renounced their U.S. citizenship,
ï¿½    have been unlawful users of or addicted to
any controlled substance,13
ï¿½    have been adjudicated as a mental defective
or have been committed to a mental institution,14
ï¿½    are known aliens and are illegally or
unlawfully in the United States or certain aliens
admitted under a nonimmigrant visa, or
ï¿½    have been denied the purchase of a firearm in
accordance with federal laws.

On the basis of a consolidated search of the three
national databases, the FBI Call Center is to
provide the FFL with one of the following two
possible one-word responses:15

ï¿½    Proceed. This response is to be provided if
no record that might be a match is found in the
NCIC 2000, III, and NICS Index databases.

ï¿½    Delayed. This response is to be provided if
the search finds a potentially matching record.16 A
delayed response to the FFL indicates that it
would be unlawful to transfer the firearm until
receipt of a follow-up proceed response or the
expiration of 3 business days, whichever occurs
first.17 Delayed means that more research is
required before a proceed or a denied response can
be given.
For each delayed response, FBI staff are to
conduct research to verify that the matching
record applies to the potential buyer and to
determine if the potential buyer is disqualified
by federal or state law from possessing a firearm.
This practice exists because Call Center contract
staff are not authorized to review criminal
history records; instead, FBI staff (examiners) at
the NICS Operation Center are to conduct the
necessary research of each delayed response to
determine whether records indicate that a proceed
response or a denied response should be provided.

Questions and Responses Regarding the Process in
Which the FFL Contacts the FBI
Using a question-and-response format (as
illustrated in fig. I.2), this section provides
further information about the firearm-purchase
application and background check process in which
an FFL contacts the FBI.

Question 1
     Does the query indicate that the potential
firearm buyer may be ineligible?

Possible Response
     No: If the database query finds no records
indicating ineligibility, the Call Center contract
staff is to (1) provide a proceed response to the
FFL and (2) also provide the FFL with an NTN,
which is to be recorded on the ATF Form 4473.
After receiving the proceed response from the FBI,
the FFL can transfer the firearm to the buyer.

     Yes: If the database query finds records
indicating possible ineligibility, the Call Center
contract staff is to (1) inform the FFL that the
transaction is delayed, (2) provide the FFL with
an NTN to be recorded on the ATF Form 4473, and
(3) obtain the FFL contact person's name and
telephone number so that he or she may receive the
results of the FBI's additional research. Then, as
previously mentioned, because Call Center contract
staff are not authorized to review criminal
history records, FBI staff (examiners) at the NICS
Operations Center are to conduct the necessary
research to determine eligibility.

     According to FBI officials, most delayed
responses are the result of the computer search
identifying existing criminal history records.
Delays that take extensive research generally
occur when the search identifies criminal records
showing an arrest for a potentially disqualifying
offense but containing no information about the
outcome or result. For example, there may be a
record showing a felony-related arrest with no
final disposition, such as whether the case was
dismissed or resulted in a conviction.

Question 2
     Does the research indicate that the buyer is
ineligible?

Possible Response
     No: If the research finds no records
indicating ineligibility, the FBI is to provide
the FFL with a proceed response, and the FFL can
then transfer the firearm to the buyer.

     Yes: If the research does find records
indicating ineligibility, the FBI is to provide
the FFL with a denied response. In turn, the FFL
is to inform the buyer of the denial and provide
the buyer with appeal instructions.

     The FFL is not to transfer the firearm until
receipt of a proceed response from the NICS
Operations Center or expiration of 3 business days
(excluding the day on which the query was made),
whichever comes first.  If 3 business days lapse
before the NICS Operations Center has notified the
FFL that the firearm purchase should be denied and
the FFL transfers the firearm, the FBI is to
initiate steps to have the firearm retrieved.

Question 3
     Does the buyer appeal the denial?

Possible Response
     No: If the buyer does not appeal the denial,
no further action is required of the FBI.  The FBI
noted, however, that if it were to receive
information that would change a denial
determination to a proceed it would correct the
criminal history records.

     Yes: The appeal must be made in writing by
the appellant. An FBI analyst is to review the
appeal.

Question 4
     Is the denial reversed on appeal?

Possible Response
     No: If the denial is not reversed on appeal,
the FBI is to inform the buyer and is not required
to take any further action.

     Yes: If the denial is reversed on appeal, the
FBI is to inform the buyer. If fewer than 30 days
have elapsed since completion of the ATF Form
4473, the FFL can transfer the firearm to the
buyer. However, if 30 or more days have elapsed,
the buyer must submit another ATF Form 4473 to
initiate an updated background check. When an
appeal results in a proceed determination, the
NICS records are to be updated to avoid having
future denials based on the same information.

_______________________________
1 Brady defined a CLEO as the "chief of police,
sheriff, or an equivalent officer or the designee
of any such individual." In some states-by
agreement among the applicable law enforcement
agencies--the state police department served as
the CLEO.
2 ATF Form 5300.35, Statement of Intent to Obtain
A Handgun(s).
3 As of February 28, 1994, 32 states were
categorized as Brady states, and the other 18
states were categorized as Brady-alternative
states.
4 In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
Brady Act's interim  (phase I) provision
commanding CLEOs to conduct background checks was
unconstitutional in that it compelled state
officers to execute federal law (Printz v. U.S.
(521 U.S. 898)).
5 Gun Control: Implementation of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act (GAO/GGD-96-22, Jan. 25,
1996).
6 NICS background checks are to be performed in
connection with firearms transfers and are not to
be limited to firearms sales (see 63 FR 58306).
When we use the term "potential buyer" or
"potential purchaser," we are also referring to
other potential firearms recipients, such as
individuals redeeming pawned firearms.
7 Federal law prohibits persons from receiving a
firearm if they (1) have been convicted of, or are
under indictment for, a felony; (2) are fugitives
from justice; (3) are unlawful users of, or
addicted to, any controlled substance; (4) have
been adjudicated as mental defectives or have been
involuntarily committed to a mental institution;
(5) are illegal or unlawful aliens, or certain
other aliens admitted to the United States under a
nonimmigrant visa; (6) have been dishonorably
discharged from the military; (7) have renounced
their U.S. citizenship; (8) are subject to certain
domestic violence restraining orders; or (9) have
been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.
8 Use of ATF Form 4473 preceded the Brady Act.
9The NTN is generated by the NICS computer. Each
NTN is to be a unique number assigned to each
valid background check inquiry received by NICS.
The primary purpose of NTNs is to provide a means
of associating inquiries to NICS with the
responses provided by NICS to FFLs. The NTNs are
further discussed in appendix IV.
10NCIC 2000, which replaced NCIC, became
operational on July 11, 1999.
11III became operational in the 1980s. III was made
a segment of the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System, which became operational on
July 28, 1999.
12Records on individuals denied under state law,
but who are not prohibited under federal law, are
not to be entered into the NICS Index. Also, any
record entered into the NICS Index must be removed
if the record is overturned through the appeal
process (discussed later in this appendix).
13Under federal law, a drug-related arrest without
a conviction normally will not prohibit a person
from purchasing a firearm. However, according to
ATF regulations, persons who have had multiple
arrests (regardless of disposition) for use or
possession of a controlled substance within the
past 5 years, if the most recent arrest occurred
within the past year, are prohibited.
14According to ATF regulations, (1) individuals
committed to a mental institution by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority; (2)
a person found to be insane in a criminal case;
(3) a person found to be mentally incompetent to
stand trial; or (4) a person found not guilty by
reason of mental responsibility are prohibited. In
contrast, persons suffering from mental illness
who have voluntarily committed themselves to a
mental institution are not disqualified by law
from possessing firearms.
15Neither response provided to the FFL is to
contain any details of the information in the
records checked by the system.
16A delayed response is also to be given in the
event that a search of the databases is not
completed within the time limit (normally a 30-
second limit). These delays are to be resolved by
the FBI after the database search is complete.
17"Business day" is defined by federal regulation
as a 24-hour day (beginning at 12:01 a.m.) during
which state offices are open in the state in which
the proposed firearm transaction is to take place
(63 Fed. Reg. 58303, 58307 (1998)).

Appendix II
Access To Disqualifying Records Under Interim
Brady
Page 49GAO/GGD-00-56 Gun Control: Options for Impr
oving NICS
In discussing the way firearms background checks
were performed under interim Brady, this appendix
summarizes (1) previous reports on access to
records under interim Brady and (2) the results of
our visits to state and local law enforcement
agencies in six states.

BJS Report on Results of Interim Brady
In June 1999, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) released a comprehensive study on the
results of interim Brady from its inception in
February 1994 until its transition to NICS in
November 1998.1 BJS reported that approximately
312,000 handgun purchases had been denied under
interim Brady. About 63 percent of the denials
were for a prior felony conviction or current
felony indictment, domestic violence misdemeanors
accounted for about 10 percent of the denials, and
domestic violence protection orders about 3
percent.

Despite the number of denials during interim
Brady, state and local agencies were not accessing
data or databases for all of the Brady
disqualifiers. As shown in table II.1 below, BJS
reported that the extent of state and local access
to data differed somewhat based on the particular
disqualifying factor:

ï¿½    All of the states maintained statewide
databases that recorded criminal histories-such as
past felony convictions.
ï¿½    Many states had access to data on other
disqualifying factors-such as fugitive status,
court restraining orders, mental illness, and
domestic violence misdemeanors.
ï¿½    In some states, these data were not available
at the state level for statewide dissemination,
but some local agencies maintained automated
databases of this type of information.
ï¿½    Some states had separate data files or
databases related to their own state prohibitions
(e.g., probation and parole, juvenile offenses,
and motor vehicle offenses).
ï¿½    None of the states accessed specific
databases for other noncriminal Brady
disqualifiers-illegal alien status, dishonorable
discharge, and citizenship renunciation.

 In addition to the above, BJS previously reported
that all states also had access to federal wanted
files and Interstate Identification Index (III)
files through the FBI's National Crime Information
Center (NCIC).2

Table II.1: State Access to Disqualifying
Information Under Interim Brady (as of November
1998)
              Number of  Percent of
                 states      states
State                    
information
Criminal             50        100%
histories
Wanted               44          88
fugitives
Restraining          36          72
orders
Mental               16          32
health
Domestic             34          68
violence
misdemeanor
s
Federal                            
information
Wanted               50         100
persons
III index            50         100
Source: BJS.

In its 1999 report, BJS concluded that once NICS
was implemented on November 30, 1998, background
checks handled entirely by the FBI might not
access all of the state-level files accessed under
interim Brady.

Our Report on Implementation of Interim Brady
In our previous report on interim Brady,3 we found
that most of the 20 state or local jurisdictions
we surveyed relied primarily on criminal history
records to conduct interim Brady background
checks. For example, in the 15 jurisdictions that
maintained records, of the 9,941 denials based on
Brady disqualifiers, about 91 percent were based
on criminal history records-primarily due to a
felony indictment, arrest, conviction, or
outstanding warrant. Another 1 percent of the
denials were based on restraining orders, and the
other 8 percent of the denials were for other
disqualifying factors under interim Brady.

We further reported that the lack of centralized,
automated databases containing information on the
other Brady disqualifiers restricted the ability
of law enforcement officers to identify
prospective gun buyers who fell into one of these
categories. According to law enforcement
officials, information concerning the other Brady
disqualifiers was only coincidentally included in
the criminal history databases. For example:

ï¿½    Drug User or Addict - Denials were based on
criminal history records showing that the
prospective gun buyer had arrests for drug
offenses.
ï¿½    Mentally Disabled - Denials were based on
local court records, state and county mental
health records, or mental problems indicated in
the criminal history records.
ï¿½    Dishonorable Discharge - Denials were based
on criminal history records indicating arrests for
being absent without leave from the military.
ï¿½    Illegal Alien - Denials were based on alien
status indicated in the criminal history records.

Thus, while interim Brady specified background
checks on a number of disqualifying, nonfelony
categories, most law enforcement officers had no
way to check purchasers' backgrounds, with respect
to these disqualifiers.

State and Local Perspectives on Access to
Information Under Interim Brady
As part of our review, from June through October
1999, we visited state and/or local law
enforcement agencies in six states4 to obtain
additional state and local perspectives on what
databases had been available under interim Brady.
More specifically, we met with officials of the
following agencies:

ï¿½    Colorado: Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
ï¿½    Georgia: Georgia Bureau of Investigation,
Cobb County Sheriff's Office, and Fulton County
Sheriff's Office.
ï¿½    Maryland: Maryland State Police.
ï¿½    Texas: City of Dallas Police Department and
City of Fort Worth Police Department.
ï¿½    Virginia: Virginia State Police.
ï¿½    Washington: King County Sheriff's Office and
Pierce County Sheriff's Office.

Colorado
(Colorado Bureau of Investigation)
Under interim Brady, Colorado operated a statewide
instant check system, established in early 1994 at
about the same time interim Brady became
effective. As such, Colorado was designated as a
Brady-alternative state. The state's background
check system covered handgun purchases and was
operated by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
The state instant check process differed from
Brady Act requirements in the following respect:

ï¿½    The background check generally had to be
completed within 24 hours of the inquiry, at which
time the gun dealer could legally sell the gun
without having received an affirmative response
from the state.
ï¿½    Prospective purchasers could be denied if
they had been arrested or charged with any crime
that, if convicted, would disqualify the person
from possessing a handgun.

During the instant background checks, the state
accessed NCIC and III to obtain records on
nationwide wanted persons and persons under
restraining orders, as well as federal and state
criminal records. Background checks also accessed
the state's criminal record repository, which
included the state's criminal history records as
well as state files on Colorado restraining orders
and Colorado wanted persons. Colorado's background
checks did not access information about some of
interim Brady's noncriminal disqualifiers. For
example, mental health records were not included
in any of the databases accessed during firearm
purchase background checks under interim Brady.
According to Colorado officials, access to these
types of medical records would be illegal under
state law. Similarly, there was no computerized
access to specific records on the federal
disqualifiers-persons dishonorably discharged,
illegal or unlawful aliens, and persons who have
renounced their citizenship-unless that
information was with a criminal record.

Georgia
(Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Cobb and Fulton
County Sheriffs' Offices)
Initially under interim Brady, Georgia relied on
local law enforcement officers to conduct handgun
background checks. As such, Georgia was a Brady
state, subject to the background check
requirements (including the 5-day background check
period) of interim Brady. During this initial
phase, local background checks primarily accessed
criminal history, wanted person, and restraining
order records through NCIC, III, and the state's
criminal record repository. The background checks
would also search local city or county criminal
justice databases for any additional disqualifying
records-for example, misdemeanors or disposition
information-that may not have been submitted to
the state repository or NCIC. These local
background checks did not access databases
containing records for some of interim Brady's
noncriminal disqualifying categories, including
mental disability, illegal or unlawful aliens, and
persons dishonorably discharged from the military.

In January 1996, Georgia established a statewide
instant check system and, thus, was considered a
Brady-alternative state under interim Brady. The
new system provided instant background checks for
handgun purchases and was operated by the Georgia
Bureau of Investigation. The state instant check
process differed from Brady Act requirements in
the following respect:

ï¿½    If the background check revealed the
existence of a potential disqualifying record not
immediately available to the state, the gun dealer
was advised the transaction was delayed, and the
gun could not be sold until the gun dealer
received an affirmative response from the state.

Georgia's instant check system essentially
accessed the same computerized databases as those
accessed by local law enforcement agencies, with
the exception of the local criminal justice
databases. There was no computerized access to
specific records for some of interim Brady's
noncriminal disqualifying categories, including
mental defectives, illegal or unlawful aliens, and
persons dishonorably discharged from the military,
unless that information was associated with a
criminal record.

Maryland
(Maryland State Police)
Under interim Brady, Maryland operated a statewide
background check system for handguns and was a
Brady-alternative state. The statewide background
check program-in place since 1966-was operated by
the Maryland State Police. The state background
check process differed from Brady Act requirements
in the following respect:

ï¿½    The state was allowed 7 days to complete the
background check, and the gun could not be sold
until after 7 days had elapsed (a mandatory
waiting period), regardless of when the check was
completed. After 7 days, the gun could be legally
sold without an affirmative response from the
state.
ï¿½    Only one handgun could be purchased by the
same person in a 30-day period.

Under Maryland's firearms background check
process, the state could access various state and
local databases containing records about federal
and state criminal histories and wanted persons
(through NCIC, III, and the Maryland criminal
record repository), state motor vehicle offenses
(for indications of drug and alcohol abuse), and
state civil warrants (for protective orders).
Under interim Brady, however, Maryland did not
have computerized access to specific information
regarding mental defectives, illegal or unlawful
aliens, or other federal noncriminal
disqualifiers, unless that information was
associated with a criminal record.

Texas
(Dallas and Fort Worth Police Departments)
In Texas, various local law enforcement agencies
conducted handgun purchase background checks under
interim Brady. Texas was considered a Brady state,
subject to the background check requirements
(including the 5-day background check period) of
interim Brady. Local background checks normally
accessed criminal history, wanted person, and
restraining order records through NCIC, III, and
the state's criminal record repository. The
background check would also search local city or
county criminal justice databases for any
additional disqualifying records-such as
misdemeanors or disposition information-that may
not have been submitted to the state repository or
NCIC.

Some law enforcement agencies accessed other
sources of data, in addition to the nationwide
databases identified above. For example, in
addition to the computerized databases accessed,
the Fort Worth Police Department also manually
accessed information on persons committed to the
county mental health center. Local background
checks did not access computerized databases
containing specific records on some of interim
Brady's noncriminal disqualifiers, such as illegal
or unlawful aliens and persons dishonorably
discharged from the military, unless that
information was associated with a criminal record.

Virginia
(Virginia State Police)
Under interim Brady, Virginia operated a statewide
instant background check system and was a Brady-
alternative state. The state's background check
covered all firearms and was operated by the
Virginia State Police. The state instant check
process differed from Brady Act requirements in
the following respect:

ï¿½    The background check generally had to be
completed by the end of the gun dealer's next
business day, at which time the gun could be
legally sold without having received an
affirmative response from the state.
ï¿½    Only one handgun could be purchased by the
same person in a 30-day period.

During the background check, the state accessed
its own criminal information network, which
electronically checked nationwide criminal history
records and wanted files through NCIC and III. In
addition, the state check also accessed the
following state databases for additional
disqualifying information not available through
NCIC or III: Virginia Mental Health File, Virginia
Wanted and Protective Order Files, Virginia
Central Criminal Records Exchange, and Virginia 30-
day Calendar File. While the Virginia background
check system allowed an instant computerized
search for many of the disqualifying categories,
the state could not check for some of interim
Brady's noncriminal disqualifiers, such as illegal
or unlawful aliens and persons dishonorably
discharged, unless that information was associated
with a criminal record.

Washington
(King and Pierce County Sheriffs' Offices)
In Washington, local law enforcement agencies
conducted handgun purchase background checks under
interim Brady. Washington was considered a Brady
state, subject to the background check
requirements (including the 5-day background check
period) of interim Brady. The state background
check process differed from Brady Act requirements
in the following respect:

ï¿½    If the background check revealed the
existence of a potential disqualifying record not
immediately available to the state, the state
could delay approval of the transaction for 30
days, during which time the gun could not be sold
without an affirmative response from the state.

Local law enforcement agencies in Washington
accessed NCIC and the Washington state criminal
record repository for nationwide records on
persons wanted or under protective orders, or
persons with federal or state criminal histories.
Local agencies also accessed statewide databases
operated by the state's Department of Social and
Health Services (for mental disability records)
and the state's Department of Licensing (for
information about previous handgun purchases and
concealed weapons permits). Finally, the
background check would search local city or county
criminal justice databases for any additional
disqualifying records-such as misdemeanors or
disposition information-that may not have been
submitted to the state repository or NCIC. King
County, for example, also checked the county's
fingerprint database, the sheriff's office report
management database, and the county prosecutor's
database for potentially disqualifying
information. Washington law enforcement agencies
did not have access to specific information
regarding some of interim Brady's noncriminal
disqualifiers, such as illegal or unlawful aliens
and persons who renounced their citizenship,
unless such information was associated with a
criminal record.

_______________________________
1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, BJS, Presale Handgun Checks, the Brady
Interim Period, 1994-98 (NCJ-175034), June 1999.
2 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, BJS, Survey of State Procedures Related
to Firearm Sales, 1996 (NCJ-163918), September
1997.
3 Gun Control: Implementation of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act (GAO/GGD-96-22, Jan. 25,
1996).
4 As discussed in appendix V, we judgmentally
selected the six states to cover a variety of
background check roles and responsibilities
possible under interim and permanent Brady.

Appendix III
Information on States' Firearms Laws
Page 52GAO/GGD-00-56 Gun Control: Options for Impr
oving NICS
This appendix provides information on various
aspects of states' firearms laws. The information
was compiled primarily from secondary sources-that
is, material published by the National Rifle
Association, Handgun Control, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS), and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Where
possible, we corroborated or expanded on the data
using state sources, including law enforcement
agencies we contacted in the six states that we
visited (see app. V).

Overview
As shown in table III.1, many states have enacted
their own firearms laws, including requirements
for (1) obtaining permits to purchase firearms,
(2) waiting a specified or mandatory time period
before firearms can be purchased, and (3)
reporting firearms purchases to state or local
authorities. In some cases, state
requirements-such as permit provisions or
mandatory waiting periods-are more stringent than
federal requirements under permanent Brady.
Consequently, firearms purchases must comply with
all of the applicable requirements of both state
and federal law.

Table III.1: State Permit, Waiting Period, and
Reporting Requirements for Firearms Purchases
(1999)
State      State permit   State waiting  Purchase
           to purchasea     period to    reported
                           purchase or   to state
                          obtain permit  or local
                             (days)b      agencyc
           Long  Handgun  Long  Handgun      
           guns     s     guns     s
Alabama                            2         
Alaska                                       
Arizona                                      
Arkansas                                     
Californi           d      10      10        
a
Colorado                                     
Connectic                  14e    14e        
ut
Delaware                                     
Florida                            3         
Georgia                                      f
Hawaii                   14g, h   14h        
Idaho                                        
Illinois                   1i      3i        
Indiana                                      
Iowa                               3g        
Kansas                                       
Kentucky                                     
Louisiana                                    
Maine                                        
Maryland            d            7h, j       
Massachus                  30      30        
etts
Michigan                           k         
Minnesota          j, l          7e, j       
Mississip                                    
pi
Missouri                           7         
Montana                                      
Nebraska                           2g        
Nevada                                       
New                                          
Hampshire
New                        30g    30m        
Jersey
New                                          
Mexico
New York                          180        
North                              30        
Carolina
North                                        
Dakota
Ohio                                         
Oklahoma                                     
Oregon                                       
Pennsylva                                    f
nia
Rhode                       7      7         
Island
South               d                        
Carolina
South                              2         
Dakota
Tennessee                                    f
Texas                                        
Utah                                         
Vermont                                      
Virginia            d                        
Washingto                          5h        
n
West                                         
Virginia
Wisconsin                          2h        
Wyoming                                      
Total        4      12      7      19       31
Note: This table represents a compilation of data
originally obtained and reported by the National
Rifle Association, Handgun Control, BJS, and ATF.
Where necessary, we also corroborated the data
with other state data sources.
aIn some cases, a permit or license is good for
multiple purchases of firearms, while in other
cases, a separate permit is required for each
purchase. Also, in some cases, a valid permit may
allow the purchaser to forgo the required state or
federal background check.
bIn some cases, a waiting period applies to
obtaining the permit; in other cases it applies to
the firearms purchase. Also, some waiting periods
(e.g., for purchases) are mandatory, while others
(e.g., for obtaining permits) represent the
maximum time allowed for the process.
cIn some cases, reporting may be for the purpose
of conducting a law enforcement background check;
in other cases, it may be for licensing or
registration of the firearm. Also, in states that
perform their own firearms background checks, some
information about approved and/or denied
transactions is retained by state or local
agencies.
dPermit or statutory exemption is required to
purchase more than one handgun in a 30-day period.
eWaiting period does not apply to valid license or
permit holders.
fOnly information about denied transactions is
retained by the state.
gWaiting period applies to initial purchase only.
hWaiting period may be extended as follows: no
more than 20 days total under any circumstance
(HI); indefinitely pending the disposition of open
criminal proceedings (MD); an additional 30 days
to verify an applicant's eligibility (WA); an
additional 3 days to obtain felony arrest
dispositions (WI).
iWaiting period of up to 30 days to initially
obtain license or permit to purchase.
jHandgun waiting period and/or permit requirements
also apply to defined assault weapons.
kNo specific time limit is placed on the handgun
permit process.
lIn lieu of obtaining a permit to purchase
multiple handguns, purchasers may elect to undergo
a separate background check and waiting period for
each handgun purchase.
mHandgun permit is not valid for purchases until
at least 7 days have elapsed since the date of the
permit application.
Source: National Rifle Association, Compendium of
State Firearms Laws (Apr. 14, 1999); Handgun
Control, What Happened in My State When the Brady
Law Waiting Period Expired? (undated); BJS, Survey
of State Procedures Related to Firearm Sales,
Midyear 1999 (Mar. 2000); ATF, Permanent Brady
Permit Chart (Dec. 27, 1999); state statutes,
laws, and regulations.

As shown above, states are more likely to enact
laws addressing the purchase of handguns, as
opposed to long guns. This distinction may, in
part, be indicative of the greater interest by
some states in regulating handguns due to a
perception that handguns are more likely to pose a
public safety risk. Maryland and Washington, for
example, have specific background check and
waiting period requirements that apply to handgun
purchases. However, the same requirements do not
apply to long gun purchases (with the exception of
defined assault weapons in Maryland).

Permits
     As table III.1 shows, 12 states have
implemented systems that require prospective
firearms purchasers to obtain a separate license
or permit before purchasing a handgun.1 Four of
these states-Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and
New Jersey-also require a permit or license to
purchase long guns. States with firearms permit or
license laws generally require a waiting period
and mandatory background check to obtain the
permit or license. In contrast to these state
permit requirements, the Brady Act does not
require individuals to obtain a permit or license
prior to purchasing any firearms.

     Other restrictions or requirements may also
apply to some states' firearms permit or license
processes. For example:

ï¿½    A waiting period may apply to the permit
process. In Illinois, for example, there is up to
a 30-day wait to initially obtain a Firearm Owners
Identification Card, required for the purchase of
any firearm. In Hawaii, a purchase permit is
required for all firearms, but the permit may not
be issued until 14 days after application.
ï¿½    Cities or counties may impose their own local
firearms permit requirements, in addition to any
state requirements. New York, for example,
requires a state permit to acquire a handgun;
however, New York City requires a permit to
purchase long guns as well.
ï¿½    Permits may be required for multiple firearms
purchases. Maryland and Virginia, for example, do
not normally require permits to purchase handguns.
However, both states have laws that require a
permit to purchase more than one handgun in a 30-
day period.

Waiting Periods
Table III.1 shows that 19 states currently allow
or require specific waiting periods prior to
purchasing or obtaining a permit to purchase a
handgun.2 Seven of these states have enacted state
waiting periods for long gun purchases or permits
as well.

Under permanent Brady, a firearm may be
transferred as soon as the background check
verifies that a prospective purchaser is eligible
to purchase a firearm (or after 3 business days
have elapsed without disqualifying information
being received). However, some states have enacted
mandatory waiting periods-that is, even if the
purchaser is approved, the firearm cannot be
transferred until the specified time has expired.
Other states specify a maximum waiting period (up
to 5 days, for example), but the firearm can be
transferred as soon as the gun dealer is notified
that the purchaser is eligible. For example:

ï¿½    Maryland requires that an eligible handgun
purchaser wait 7 days from the date of the
purchase before the firearm can be transferred,
regardless of when the state completes the
background check.3 If the state does not notify
the gun dealer of the purchaser's eligibility
within this time, the firearm may be transferred
after the 7 days has elapsed.
ï¿½    Washington allows local law enforcement
agencies up to 5 business days to perform a
handgun background check. The firearm may be
transferred as soon as the dealer is notified that
the purchaser is eligible, or after the 5 days has
elapsed. Also, if available records indicate that
the purchaser has an arrest for a potentially
disqualifying offense, the local law enforcement
agency performing the check can automatically
extend the waiting period up to 30 days, pending
receipt of disposition information that would
verify the purchaser's eligibility to possess a
firearm.
ï¿½    In Illinois, as noted above, individuals must
obtain a Firearm Owners Identification Card prior
to purchasing any firearm. However, once this
Identification Card is obtained, purchasers are
still subject to mandatory state waiting periods
for each firearms purchase-1 day for long guns and
3 days for handguns.

Reporting
Table III.1 shows that 31 states require some
information about approved firearms purchases to
be reported to and retained by state or local
authorities (3 other states require only
information on denied purchases be retained). In
some cases, this process involves owner
registration of all firearms-including serial
number and description-with a government
authority, usually local or state police. In other
cases, this process involves recording information
only about purchases from licensed gun dealers,
which may then be forwarded by the dealers to a
government authority. For example:

ï¿½    In Washington, all handgun purchases are
first reported to a local law enforcement agency
in the purchaser's place of residence to determine
the purchaser's eligibility to possess a handgun.
Within 7 days of transfer of the handgun,
information about the sale-including  the
purchaser's name and description of the
handgun-must also be reported to the state's
Department of Licensing, which maintains a
database of all persons who have purchased
handguns.
ï¿½    Maryland requires that all handgun sales or
transfers be reported within 7 days of the
transfer to the Maryland State Police, which is to
maintain a permanent record of all completed sales
and transfers. Dealers must provide a copy of the
written notification of the transaction, including
details about the firearm transferred-such as
make, model, and caliber.
ï¿½    Hawaii requires that all firearms be
registered with the chief of police of the county
of the person's place of business or residence.
The registration is to include information about
the firearm (e.g., make, model, and caliber), the
source of the firearm, and the owner's permit
number. This requirement applies to all firearms,
whether purchased in the state or previously owned
and brought into the state.

In contrast, permanent Brady does not require any
reporting of firearms sales to local authorities,
nor does it require owner registration of
firearms. In fact, the Brady Act specifically
prohibits the establishment of any registration of
firearms, firearms owners, or firearms
transactions, except for those persons prohibited
from receiving a firearm.4

_______________________________
1 Four other states require a permit or exemption
only for purchases of more than one handgun within
a 30-day period.
2 One other state, Michigan, requires that permits
be processed with due speed and diligence, but no
time limit is placed on this process.
3 This waiting period applies to handguns and
certain long guns defined by the state as assault
weapons.
4 Under permanent Brady, firearms transactions are
recorded by licensed gun dealers, and that
information is retained by the dealer on site. For
those dealers who contact the FBI for NICS
background checks, some identifying information
about the purchase is maintained on computer by
the FBI for up to 180 days, after which all
records relating to approved transactions are to
be destroyed except the NICS transaction number
and the date the number was created.

Appendix IV
Relationship Between Background Checks and Quality
of Automated Records
Page 63GAO/GGD-00-56 Gun Control: Options for Impr
oving NICS
In discussing the relationship between automated
background checks and waiting periods, this
appendix summarizes information reported by the
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)1 and the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

OTA Report (1991)
     Before passage of the Brady Act, OTA reviewed
various proposals for making automated firearms
background checks, including the use of point-of-
sale instant checks similar to NICS.2 Among other
things, OTA's review examined the relationship
between automated record checks and waiting
periods. OTA's 1991 report noted that:

ï¿½    While instant check systems already seemed
practical in a few states, in many others a
waiting period of several days (and sometimes
weeks) was needed to check a combination of manual
and automated criminal records.
ï¿½    The average waiting period could shorten over
time as more states developed the capabilities
needed for instant checks; however, this assumed
states do not retain waiting periods for other
reasons-such as cooling off or checks of
noncriminal justice records.

The OTA report went on to state that:

"Waiting periods help provide the time needed for
criminal record checks in many states using
whatever combination of manual and automated
capabilities exists. The amount of time required
for checks is, all other things being equal,3
inversely related to automation, record quality,
and the ability to accurately identify firearms
purchasers. The more automated and complete a
state's criminal records, and the lower the
incidence of false identification, the less the
need for waiting periods for the purpose of
[background] checks."

State-to-State Comparisons
     The OTA report compared the states of
Virginia and California to illustrate the function
between waiting periods and availability of
automated records. In Virginia, the state had the
ability to conduct an initial instant check in a
matter of seconds, with a relatively low level of
known "false positive" outcomes (incorrectly
identifying a firearms purchaser as prohibited) or
"false negative" outcomes (failing to identify a
prohibited firearms purchaser). OTA found, for
example, that about 4 out of every 100 purchasers
were initially disapproved incorrectly based on
false positive hits; and that half of these were
corrected within several hours or by the next
business day. OTA concluded that, if this level of
false positives was judged acceptable, then the
value of a waiting period for the purpose of
making a background check-as opposed to cooling
off-was relatively low.

     In California, by comparison, OTA found that
firearm background checks took 4 to 7 days on
average and noted further that this was part of
the justification for the state's (at that time)
15-day waiting period. The reasons California took
longer than Virginia were as follows:

ï¿½    a much larger volume of firearms background
checks (almost 5 times as many);
ï¿½    a somewhat lower level of disposition
reporting for recent arrests (85 percent versus 95
percent); and
ï¿½    the necessity to check certain noncriminal
records (e.g., mental health commitments).

 Further, OTA reported that California experienced
a high initial false positive rate-so high that an
instant check system might be unacceptable, even
if technically feasible:

ï¿½    About 28 of every 100 purchasers were
initially disapproved, but only 1 of the 28 was
eventually confirmed as not qualified to purchase
a firearm.
ï¿½    Because of the state's waiting period, the
other 27 false positive hits were corrected before
the responses were sent back to the gun dealers.
ï¿½    If California had an instant check system,
however, the incorrect initial disapproval would
have to be provided to dealers before the
purchaser's legal status could be fully
determined.

 According to OTA, the major factor in implementing
a successful instant background check system is
the quality of criminal history records-that is,
reasonably complete and timely arrest and
disposition information, accessible through
telecommunication and computing technology. That
is, without the appropriate criminal record
infrastructure, an instant check system could
result in (1) a large number of false positive
hits, frustrated criminal records officials, and
unhappy gun purchasers and (2) an unknown number
of felons and fugitives who are erroneously
authorized to, in effect, illegally purchase
firearms (false negatives).

Checking Noncriminal Records
     However, as difficult as instant criminal
record checks may be, the challenges posed by
checking other types of records-including records
involving drug users, mental defectives, illegal
aliens, citizenship renunciants, and persons
dishonorably discharged-are even greater. OTA
estimated that as many as 20 million persons fell
into one of these categories and that records did
not even exist on perhaps four-fifths of these
people. For those records that did exist, OTA
estimated that probably half were not automated
and many were subject to complicated, conflicting
laws, rules, and traditions on disclosure. OTA
noted, for example, that:

ï¿½    Over 14 million persons were unlawful users
of controlled substances; but only about 3 percent
were included in some kind of record system (not
counting those that may be felons or fugitives).
ï¿½    About 2.7 million persons were estimated to
be illegal aliens, but only about one-fourth were
listed in any record system.
ï¿½    Another 2.7 million persons were estimated to
be mentally defective (including only those
persons involuntarily committed to mental
institutions); and, while many of these persons
were listed in state mental health databases, the
completeness and accuracy of these records were
largely unknown, and most of the records were not
automated.

 OTA noted that the outlook was not good for
including all disqualifying categories in routine
firearms purchase record checks:

ï¿½    Illegal drug users and illegal aliens posed
perhaps insurmountable problems, because most were
not included in any record system.
ï¿½    Records on citizenship renunciants and
persons dishonorably discharged were relatively
complete and accessible (through the Departments
of State and Defense) but made up an insignificant
portion of all disqualifying records.
ï¿½    Involuntarily committed mental patients might
eventually be checked on a systematic basis, but
substantial record automation and quality
improvement would be needed in most states.
Voluntary commitments, which accounted for the
vast majority of mental cases, would be much more
difficult and controversial to check.

 OTA further concluded that, depending on the
extent to which background checks for all
disqualifying categories are to be conducted, a
lengthy waiting period may be necessary to locate
and search whatever records exist.

BJS Report (1999)
     In April 1999, BJS published the data from
its most recent periodic survey on the status of
state criminal history records.4 The survey
involved 53 jurisdictions (all 50 states plus
Washington, D.C.; Puerto Rico; and the U.S. Virgin
Islands), and the results were based on data that
were current as of December 31, 1997. The survey
addressed various issues, including the quantity
and quality of records5 held in criminal history
databases, the level of automation of the criminal
history records, and the level and timeliness of
disposition reporting to criminal history
repositories.

Quantity and Accessibility of Records
According to BJS, most criminal history records
are either automated and quickly accessible or can
be identified through state pointer indexes. BJS
reported that, as of December 31, 1997, over 54.2
million criminal history records were held in
states' criminal history repositories, of which
about 87 percent were automated. The remaining 13
percent, approximately 6.8 million records, were
not automated.6 Despite not being automated, the
existence of these records can still be identified
during a background check by accessing states'
master name indexes-an identification index that
includes names and other identifiers for all
persons about whom a criminal history record is
held. Forty-five of the 52 reporting jurisdictions
had fully automated master name indexes, and 5
others had partially automated master name
indexes. Some indexes may also include "felony
flags," which quickly indicate whether the record
subject has an arrest or conviction for a felony
offense. An automated master name index is the key
to rapidly identifying persons who may have
criminal records for purposes such as presale
firearms checks.

Completeness of Records
A large portion of criminal history records do not
contain information about the disposition of the
case. BJS reported that central repositories in
only 7 jurisdictions received court disposition
information (i.e., sentencing or other final
settlement of a criminal case) for 100 percent of
their felony arrest records. Conversely, central
repositories in 7 other jurisdictions received
dispositions for less than 50 percent of their
criminal history records. During a background
check, a "hit" on a criminal history record that
does not include disposition information (e.g.,
whether an arrest resulted in a conviction)
requires that the checking authority do
additional-sometimes manual-research to determine
the outcome of the case. This is particularly
important during a firearms background check,
since the simple existence of a felony arrest
(without a conviction) does not disqualify the
purchaser from obtaining a firearm under federal
law.

Timeliness of Records
There is a significant time lag in entering
disposition information (and to a lesser extent
arrest information) into criminal history
repositories. BJS reported that, in 1997 it took
an average of 42 days between the time of an
individual's final court disposition and the
receipt of that information at the state criminal
history repository. Although the majority of
responding jurisdictions received disposition
information within 30 days of the outcome, 1
state-Pennsylvania-reported that such receipt took
an average of 360 days. Further, although the
average number of days between receipt of the
disposition information and entry in the criminal
history databases was 33, in 2 states-Indiana and
Minnesota-it took an average of 180 days. To
illustrate the magnitude of the problem, 26
jurisdictions indicated they had backlogs in
entering disposition data into criminal history
databases. For example, Louisiana reported 180,000
dispositions partially or wholly unprocessed and
estimated that 4,500 person days would be needed
to eliminate the backlog. In addition, 5 other
states reported backlogs of 100,000 or more
dispositions. Because of this time lag, at any
given point in time, a criminal history background
check (such as NICS) will not have access to all
the records necessary to accurately determine an
individual's criminal history.

Potential Impact of Criminal History Records on
NICS
     Regarding the quality of state criminal
history records, BJS concluded that the key
concern is the completeness of records and the
extent to which records include dispositions as
well as arrest and charge information. Other
concerns included the timeliness of data reporting
to criminal history repositories and the
timeliness of data entry by the repositories. In
relating the quality of criminal history records
with the November 1998 implementation of NICS, BJS
further stated that the levels of coverage,
completeness, accuracy, and accessibility of the
state criminal history information systems can
directly affect the effectiveness and efficiency
of NICS.

Improving the Quality of Automated Records
The National Criminal History Improvement Program
(NCHIP) is a long-term and comprehensive federal
effort, administered by BJS, to improve the
quality of automated criminal history records.
Begun in 1995, NCHIP has provided about $293
million (including about $43 million in August
1999) in grant funding to help states build an
accurate and useful national system of criminal
records to, among other things, facilitate
background checks on persons attempting to
purchase firearms. Relevant to firearms background
checks, NCHIP funds can assist states to

ï¿½    establish programs and systems to facilitate
full state participation in III and NCIC;
ï¿½    develop systems to facilitate full
participation in NICS;
ï¿½    ensure that noncriminal history records
information systems relevant to firearms
eligibility determinations become available and
accessible to NICS;
ï¿½    improve the level of automation, accuracy,
and completeness of records, including arrest and
disposition reporting;
ï¿½    identify, classify, collect, and maintain
records of protection orders, warrants, arrests,
and convictions of persons violating protection
orders so as to protect victims of stalking and
domestic violence;
ï¿½    support court-based criminal justice
information systems that promote reporting of
dispositions; and
ï¿½    establish domestic violence offender
identification and information systems.

In its fiscal year 1999 NCHIP program
announcement, BJS identified three specific
program priorities, all of which are directly
related to improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of NICS:

ï¿½    Commitment to full implementation of NICS -
BJS noted that states are encouraged to serve as
full participants in NICS in order to (1) allow
access to the most complete and up-to-date state
criminal records and records of noncriminal
factors and (2) utilize state personnel who can
best interpret criminal records. In support of
NICS, fiscal year 1999 NCHIP funds were available
to cover costs associated with participating in
NICS and to ameliorate any problems that were
delaying instant responses to firearms dealers'
background check inquiries.
ï¿½    Commitment to participation in III - BJS
noted that III participation by states was
critical to ensuring that the most accurate and
complete criminal records are available instantly
for NICS firearms checks. This priority required
states that were not III members to identify
problems precluding participation and to focus
1999 NCHIP funds on activities that furthered this
goal.
ï¿½    Commitment to support courts' development of
record systems - BJS stressed the importance of
NICS having access to computerized criminal
history records complete with dispositions, as
well as immediate statewide and interstate access
to domestic violence protection orders. In
recognizing the importance of the courts in this
effort, 1999 NCHIP funding plans were to help
ensure that adequate attention was directed to
help the courts make this information available on
a complete and immediate basis.

 In a February 2000 report7 on NCHIP and two other
federally funded programs to improve criminal
history records, BJS reported that automation has
made records available on a more timely basis and
that these records have become more accessible and
useful as a result of improvements in automated
systems and record completeness. However, linking
arrest and disposition records continues to pose
problems stemming from (1) delays in rendering
dispositions in court and communicating those
dispositions to the state's criminal history
repository and (2) long-term difficulties in
obtaining 100 percent of felony dispositions and
linking them to the appropriate felony arrest.

     Regarding NICS, BJS reported that more
firearms sales to ineligible purchasers may occur
under NICS than during the interim provisions of
Brady, in part, because the majority of states are
not points of contact under NICS. In these other
states (where the FBI performs NICS background
checks), the FBI would not have access to the more
complete state-level criminal records and may not
be able to verify certain nonfelon
information-such as mental health information. As
a result, the FBI NICS checks are less likely to
uncover disqualifying information than either
state NICS checks or checks performed under
interim Brady.

     BJS also reported that the identification of
nonfelons ineligible to purchase firearms-such as
persons with a history of mental illness or drug
abuse, persons subject to restraining orders, and
persons who have committed domestic violence
misdemeanors-is expected to remain problematic.
For example, the dissemination of mental health
and drug abuse information raises legal and
ethical questions about the rights to privacy, and
new enabling statutes may be required to identify
and access such information. Further, states may
not be able to easily identify those restraining
orders-among the several types of orders that
exist-that are considered Brady disqualifiers.
Finally, domestic violence misdemeanors, which in
the past were often categorized simply as
assaults, may be difficult to extract from
criminal history records.

_______________________________
1 OTA, a nonpartisan congressional research
agency, ceased operations on September 29, 1995.
2 U.S. Congress, OTA, Automated Record Checks of
Firearm Purchasers: Issue and Options (OTA-TCT-
497), July 1991.
3 "Like the state's population, volume of firearm
sales, and resources available to conduct checks."
4 U.S. Department of Justice, BJS, Survey of State
Criminal History Information Systems, 1997: A
Criminal Justice Information Policy Report (NCJ-
175041), April 1999.
5 A criminal history record is a record that
includes individual identifiers and describes an
individual's arrests and subsequent dispositions.
6 Maine and the U.S. Virgin Islands had no
automated criminal history files.
7 U.S. Department of Justice, BJS, Continuing
Criminal History Records Improvement Evaluation:
Final 1994-98 Report (NCJ-179768), February 2000.
This report evaluated the effects of three federal
programs: the BJS-funded Criminal History Records
Improvement Program; the 5-percent set-aside of
the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Program, funded by the
Bureau of Justice Assistance; and the BJS-funded
National Criminal History Improvement Program.

Appendix V
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 67GAO/GGD-00-56 Gun Control: Options for Impr
oving NICS
Objectives
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
Oversight, Senate Committee on the Judiciary and
Senator Richard J. Durbin requested that we
provide information about the effectiveness of the
Brady Act's phase I (interim Brady) and phase II
(permanent Brady) provisions in preventing the
sale of firearms to prohibited individuals.

Under interim Brady-which went into effect
February 28, 1994, and applied to handguns
only-background checks generally were to be
conducted by the chief law enforcement officer in
the purchaser's residence community. During phase
I, handguns were not to be transferred for 5
business days (a waiting period), unless the
dealer received an approval from the applicable
state or local chief law enforcement officer
(CLEO) before that time. If the dealer was not
contacted within the 5-day period, the dealer was
allowed to proceed with the sale unless the dealer
had reason to believe the transaction would be
unlawful.

Under permanent Brady-effective November 30, 1998,
and applicable to all firearms, both handguns and
long guns (e.g., rifles and shotguns)- background
checks generally are to be conducted using a
computerized system, the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS), which is managed
by the FBI. Under NICS, firearms are not to be
transferred until a background check determines
that the transfer will not violate applicable
federal and state law. However, if the background
check is not completed within 3 business days, the
sale is allowed to proceed by default (a "default
proceed").

As agreed with the requesters, our work addressed
the following questions:

ï¿½    Regarding access to databases or other
information sources for conducting background
checks to identify individuals prohibited by law
from receiving firearms, how does permanent Brady
compare with interim Brady? For instance, under
permanent Brady, does the FBI have access to the
same types of information that were available to
state and local CLEOs under interim Brady? If not,
what steps are being taken to enhance access to
such information?

ï¿½    Under permanent Brady, depending on the
specific state, either the FBI or a designated
state law enforcement agency (e.g., the state
police) uses NICS to conduct background checks.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of NICS
background checks being conducted by a designated
state agency versus such checks being conducted by
the FBI?
ï¿½    Under permanent Brady, to what extent have
default proceeds resulted in firearms being sold
to prohibited individuals? To prevent or minimize
such transfers, what are the options that
policymakers can consider?
Scope and Methodology of Our Work
In comparing FBI NICS background checks with local
checks conducted under interim Brady and state
checks conducted under permanent Brady, we our did
work at the FBI's NICS Operations Center, as well
as at law enforcement agencies in selected states.
We also reviewed studies on interim Brady
implementation that were issued by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) and us.

To obtain information about the NICS background
check process, we met with FBI officials at the
FBI's NICS Operations Center (in Clarksburg, WV),
which conducts presale background checks involving
(1) firearms, both handguns and long guns,
purchased from licensed dealers in 24 states and
(2) long guns purchased from licensed dealers in
11 other states.1

To obtain state and local perspectives on interim
Brady and assess the advantages and disadvantages
of NICS background checks compared with state
background checks, we interviewed responsible
officials at state and local law enforcement
agencies in six selected states-Colorado, Georgia,
Maryland, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

To determine whether permanent Brady's 3-day
period for conducting background checks has
resulted in firearms being sold to prohibited
persons, we reviewed previous congressional and
Bureau of Justice Statistics studies on automated
background checks. We also analyzed FBI NICS
transactions to determine the length of time
required to verify purchasers' qualifications, the
number of firearms sold to persons later found to
be prohibited, and the reasons why NICS
transactions were delayed beyond 3 days.

Generally, in performing our work, we largely
relied on testimonial and documentary
evidence-such as agency statistics-provided by FBI
and other agency officials. We did not fully
assess the reliability or accuracy of the data
provided to us by agency officials. However, we
did discuss the sources of the data with agency
officials. We also worked with agency officials to
reconcile any discrepancies we identified in the
data. In addition, the FBI did not have visibility
over all NICS-related national statistics
(including those transactions handled by point of
contact states), such as the number of denials by
prohibited categories and the number of denials
successfully appealed. For these types of data,
the FBI was able to provide us statistics covering
only those background checks conducted by the
FBI-and not those conducted by state agencies in
full-participant and partial-participant states.

     The following sections present more details
about our scope and methodology for each of the
objectives.

Scope and Methodology of Our Work Regarding NICS
Compared With Interim Brady
Our work focused on identifying (1) data and
databases used by law enforcement agencies during
interim Brady to identify persons that were
prohibited from purchasing firearms and (2)
differences between information accessed under
interim Brady and information now accessed by the
FBI under NICS. We specifically looked for any
differences in access to certain nonfelony,
noncriminal records-such as those indicating drug
abuse or mental disability-that would disqualify
persons from purchasing firearms.

We first reviewed existing studies and reports
about background checks performed under interim
Brady. Our previous report on implementation of
the Brady Act2 described the interim Brady
background check process in general, specific
processes followed in several selected
jurisdictions, and the types of data and databases
accessed by CLEOs during background checks. We
also contacted BJS, which has published three
reports covering interim Brady:

ï¿½    Presale Firearm Checks (NCJ-162787), February
1997.
ï¿½    Presale Handgun Checks, 1997 (NCJ-171130),
June 1998.
ï¿½    Presale Handgun Checks, the Brady Interim
Period, 1994-98 (NCJ-175034), June 1999.

To obtain additional state and local perspectives
on interim Brady background checks, we visited law
enforcement officials in six states-Colorado,
Georgia, Maryland, Texas, Virginia, and
Washington. As shown in table V.1, we judgmentally
selected these locations in order to reflect a mix
of CLEO types under interim Brady and state
participation types under NICS.3 More
specifically:

ï¿½    Colorado was a single-state instant check
CLEO under interim Brady, became a full-
participant state under NICS, then switched to the
nonparticipant category, and now is back to the
full-participant category.
ï¿½    Georgia began as a local CLEO under interim
Brady, switched to a single-state instant check,
and now is a full-participant state under NICS.
ï¿½    Maryland was a single-state CLEO under
interim Brady and is a partial-participant state
(handgun purchases) under NICS.
ï¿½    Texas was a local CLEO under interim Brady
and is a nonparticipant state under NICS.
ï¿½    Virginia was a single-state instant check
CLEO under interim Brady and is a full-participant
state under NICS.
ï¿½    Washington was a local CLEO under interim
Brady and is a partial-participant state (handgun
purchases) under NICS.

Table V.1: Brady Status of States Selected for
Site Visits
State  Interim Bradya  ---------- Permanent Bradyb
                               ----------
        Brady  Brady- Point of  Point of FBI state
        state alterna  contact  contact  (nonpartic
                tive    state    state     ipant)
               state    (full   (partial
                      participaparticipa
                         nt)      nt)
Colora                                       c
do
Georgi    d                                   
a
Maryla                                        
nd
Texas                                         
Virgin                                        
ia
Washin    d                                   
gton
a Beginning February 28, 1994, interim Brady
allowed CLEOs at the state or local level 5 days
to conduct presale background checks on purchasers
of handguns. By the end of Phase I, 27 states
("Brady states") were subject to interim Brady's
waiting period requirements because no alternative
system was in place to perform background checks.
However, 23 states ("Brady-alternative states")
had systems in place (permit systems or other
procedures for operating background check systems)
that ATF determined were acceptable alternatives
to the interim Brady background check and waiting
period.
b Beginning November 30, 1998, permanent Brady
allowed states 3 days to conduct presale
background checks on purchasers of firearms by
relying on the new FBI NICS system, or by using
their own state systems. Currently, 15 states
(point of contact - full participants) conduct
NICS checks for all firearm purchases and for
permits for handguns and long guns. Eleven states
(point of contact - partial participants) perform
NICS checks for handgun permits and purchases
while the FBI performs NICS checks for long gun
purchases. The FBI performs NICS checks on both
handguns and long guns for the remaining 24 states
(FBI states - nonparticipants).
cColorado was a nonparticipant state from April 1,
1999, through July 31, 1999.
dGeorgia and Washington began as Brady states, but
later became Brady-alternative states.
Source: BJS, Presale Handgun Checks, the Brady
Interim Period, 1994-98 (NCJ-175034), June 1999;
FBI, National Instant Criminal Background Check
System: The First Seven Months (November 30, 1998
- June 30 1999); and Gun Control: Implementation
of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
(GAO/GGD-96-22, Jan. 25, 1996).

To obtain information about how access to data and
databases under NICS differs from that available
under interim Brady, we first discussed these
issues with officials at the FBI's NICS Operations
Center. During our visits, we interviewed
applicable managers and reviewed relevant
documents related to the establishment of NICS and
the types of data accessed during the NICS
background check. We also obtained from the FBI a
description of the types of data available through
the newly created NICS Index database and the
number of records in the database.

Scope and Methodology of Our Work Regarding FBI
Compared With State Agencies Under NICS
     Our work focused on identifying the
advantages and disadvantages of state agencies
performing NICS background checks versus the FBI
performing those checks. We specifically looked
for any differences in (1) access to background
check information and (2) ability to interpret
applicable federal and state firearms laws. During
the course of our work, we attempted to identify
factors that could preclude states from becoming
full participants in NICS.

     As noted above, we met with FBI NICS
Operations Center officials to obtain information
about the NICS background check process. During
our visits, we interviewed applicable managers and
reviewed relevant documents related to the
establishment and operation of NICS, including the
types of data accessed during the NICS background
check and how NICS examiners verify a purchaser's
eligibility under federal and state law.

     Five of the six states we visited were either
full or partial participants under NICS. At these
locations, we interviewed state law enforcement
officials and documented the extent to which these
states accessed data for all of the Brady
disqualifying factors when performing background
checks. We also identified examples of NICS
transactions where the states had access to
certain disqualifying information that the FBI
would not have had and the reason for disparities.

     To document whether states may be better able
to interpret federal and state firearms laws, we
identified examples of variations and complexities
in state firearms laws during our state visits. We
obtained a 2000 report4 by BJS that described
state procedures related to firearms sales. We
also obtained FBI data on the total number of NICS
denials that were appealed, the number of denials
that were reversed through appeal, and the reasons
why the FBI reversed those denials. We used these
data to identify the extent to which FBI reversals
are due to misinterpretation of criminal history
records. For additional support, we also obtained
examples from selected ATF field offices in the
locations we visited documenting FBI NICS denials
that had been referred for investigation, but
which ATF later found had been denied based on
incorrect interpretation of state law.

Scope and Methodology of Our Work Regarding 3-Day
Background Check Period Under NICS
     Our work focused on (1) identifying the
number of NICS background checks that were delayed
beyond 3 business days, (2) determining how many
of these checks resulted in firearms being sold to
persons later found to be prohibited by the FBI,
and (3) documenting the reasons why such delays
take place. During the course of our work, we
attempted to identify options for reducing the
incidence of firearms being sold to prohibited
persons.

     We first reviewed existing studies and
reports about the relationships between background
checks, waiting periods, and automated records. We
obtained a 1991 study5 by the Office of Technology
Assessment6 about the need for background check
waiting periods to facilitate accurate checks of
automated records. We obtained a 1999 report7 by
BJS that described the extent to which state
criminal history records are automated, complete,
and accurate. We also obtained a 2000 report by
BJS that described efforts to improve the quality
of state criminal history records through federal
grant programs.8

     In addition to having various telephone
discussions with officials at the FBI's NICS
Operations Center, we also visited the Center
during June and September 1999. We interviewed
responsible FBI officials and reviewed relevant
NICS documentation, including the NICS Standard
Operating Procedures Manual, Point of Contact
State Manual, and FFL NICS Manual. We also
obtained the FBI's 1999 status reports on the
implementation of NICS.9

     For the period beginning November 30, 1998,
(when NICS began operations) through September 30,
1999, we obtained various NICS statistics from the
FBI's NICS Operations Center, such as the number
of background checks performed, the number of
transactions denied and the reasons for denial,
and the number of denials successfully appealed.
To specifically document the length of time needed
to complete NICS transactions and the reason why
transactions are delayed, we also obtained the
following data:

ï¿½    For all denied NICS transactions, the length
of time the FBI needed to make the final decision
to deny the firearm purchase;
ï¿½    For those transactions where the FBI could
not make a determination within 3 business days,
the number of firearms released to prohibited
persons and the length of time the FBI needed to
deny the firearm purchase and initiate the firearm
retrieval process;
ï¿½    The total number of NICS denials that were
appealed, the number of denials that were reversed
through appeal, and the reasons why the FBI
reversed those denials.

_______________________________
1 As discussed in appendix I, the 24 states are
referred to as "nonparticipants" in NICS, and the
11 states are referred to as "partial
participants." In the other 15 states ("full
participants"), licensed dealers are to contact a
designated state point of contact (e.g., state
police), who will conduct the NICS check and
determine whether the transfer would violate state
or federal law.
2 Gun Control: Implementation of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act (GAO/GGD-96-22, Jan. 25,
1996).
3 Appendix I provides more information about the
state participation categories under interim Brady
and NICS.
4 U.S. Department of Justice, BJS, Survey of State
Procedures Related to Firearm Sales, Midyear 1999
(NCJ-179022), March 2000.
5 U.S. Congress, OTA, Automated Record Checks of
Firearm Purchasers: Issues and Options (OTA-TCT-
497), July 1991.
6 OTA, a nonpartisan congressional research
agency, ceased operations on September 29, 1995.
7 U.S. Department of Justice, BJS, Survey of State
Criminal History Information Systems, 1997: A
Criminal Justice Information Policy Report (NCJ-
175041), April 1999.
8 U.S. Department of Justice, BJS, Continuing
Criminal History Records Improvement Evaluation:
Final 1994-1998 Report (NCJ-179768), February
2000.
9 U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS):
The First Seven Months (November 30, 1998 - June
30, 1999); and U.S. Department of Justice, FBI,
National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS): Operations Report (November 30, 1998 -
December 31, 1999).

Appendix VI
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 72GAO/GGD-00-56 Gun Control: Options for Impr
oving NICS
GAO Contacts
Laurie E. Ekstrand, (202) 512-8777

Danny R. Burton, (214) 777-5600

Acknowledgments
     In addition to the above, David P. Alexander,
Philip D. Caramia, Geoffrey R. Hamilton, Mary Lane
Renninger, Dennise R. Stickley, and Ellen T. Wolfe
made key contributions to this report.

*** End of Document ***